Articles Posted in Rape

Published on:

In April 1969, the relator was convicted in the Nassau County Court of one count of grand larceny in the third degree, and one count of forgery in the third degree, on the basis of his prior plea of guilty. He was sentenced, on each count, to imprisonment in the Nassau County Jail for a period of one year, said terms to be served consecutively.

A Nassau County Criminal lawyer said that in November 1968, the relator had falsely drawn four checks, all on the same bank account and to the order of the same payee, and that he had received from the payee named in the purported checks property and cash having an aggregate value of more than $250.00.

The Relator contends that since both of the offenses to which he pleaded guilty arose from the same transaction, the issuance of a forged instrument and the receipt of value therefor, the Court lacked power to impose consecutive terms of imprisonment.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

In this Criminal case, defendant filed an appeal from a judgment of the Nassau County Court, convicting him of rape and sodomy in different degrees.

A Nassau County Criminal attorney said that following defendant’s arrest in connection with the alleged sexual assault upon the 14 year old female complainant, the defendant gave a statement in which he admitted that he and the codefendant had, in one evening of January 1984, offered the complainant a ride in their car, given her alcoholic drinks, and then taken her to a secluded location where the two men had sexual intercourse with her in the back seat of the car. The defendant claimed, however, that he was not aware of the age of the complainant and that she had consented to sexual activities.

The Court addressed the defendant’s claim that the People failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that Nassau County had the necessary geographical jurisdiction over the prosecution of this case. The Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s implicit finding that the exact location of the incident was unknown and that the People were entitled to rely upon the “private vehicle exception”. The defendant’s challenge to the propriety of the court’s charge on the issue of jurisdiction has not been preserved for review as a matter of law.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

In an action against the property clerk of the Nassau County Police Department to recover possession of an automobile or, if possession could not be given, $1,000, its alleged value, together with $4,000 damages for its detention, a judgment was entered directing defendant to deliver to plaintiff the automobile, or $100, its value at the time of the trial, if possession could not be delivered, together with $151.75, the costs and disbursements of the action.

A Nassau County Criminal attorney said that in November, 1947 one was arrested in Nassau County on a warrant for the violation of his parole on a sentence imposed in Michigan on a conviction of rape. In Nassau County bail was fixed for his appearance on a hearing. When he failed to appear, the bail was forfeited and a warrant was issued for jumping bail.

Thereafter, or in March 1948 the Nassau County police were seeking to arrest a fugitive from justice, on those warrants. The police had received information that said criminal fugitive had a 1947 Cadillac sedan, the subject of this action. They found the plaintiff in possession of the car which bore Florida license plates. He had no registration or proof of ownership in himself but claimed that he had purchased the car. The police seized the car on that day and the property clerk has possession thereof.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

This is a criminal proceeding wherein the appeal concerns the validity of New York City’s Amended Zoning Resolution governing the location of adult entertainment establishments throughout the five boroughs.

The court concludes that the Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment declaring that the challenged ordinance does not violate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights of free expression.

The “adult” establishments at the center of this controversy offer various forms of sexual expression including bookstores, theaters, stores dealing in videotaped material and places of live entertainment. Over time, the industry has experienced a steady growth with sections of Manhattan and Queens showing the greatest development. By 1993, there were 177 adult establishments operating in New York City: 107 in Manhattan, 44 in Queens, 15 in Brooklyn, eight in the Bronx and three in Staten Island.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

A man filed an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court convicting him of rape in the first degree, two counts of criminal sexual act in the first degree and incest, upon his plea of guilty and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review an order of protection issued at the time of sentencing.

With regards to the man’s contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, the court states that it is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to move to withdraw his plea. Sources revealed that the narrow exception to the preservation rule, which arises when the offender’s plea recitation of the facts underlying the crime casts significant doubt on his guilt or otherwise calls into question the voluntariness of the plea, is inapplicable in the case of the man.

The court further stated that the man has no basis to complain about the length of the sentence imposed to him, since the sentence was part of the negotiated plea bargain. Contrary to the man’s contention, the Supreme Court did not inefficiently exercise its discretion in finding the duration of the final order of protection entered against him.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

In this criminal case, defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of placing a six inch knife to the throat of a thirteen year old girl and then ripping the chain off her neck. The victim was the only eyewitness to the crime, which lasted only seconds. No other evidence, aside from the victim’s later identification, connected the defendant to the crime. The defendant’s principal contention on appeal was that the now retired trial judge abused his discretion by denying his application to elicit expert testimony with respect to the reliability of eyewitness identifications without first holding a hearing.

A Nassau County Criminal attorney said that in June 2005, a 13-year-old girl was on her way home from school, was descending well-lit stairs into the subway station when a man whom she did not know approached her and asked for “some change.” This man stood face-to-face with her, about two feet away. She initially did not think he intended to harm her and was not afraid. Looking him squarely in the face, she said she had no change.

A Nassau County Criminal lawyer said that after the victim “took a couple of steps forward,” the stranger wheeled in front of her, placed a knife with a six-inch blade and “a big curve on the end” near her throat, and asked her “a couple of times” to hand over her necklace, a gold chain with a locket. As this man stood close by her, she was “looking at his face”; she was “really scared” and “didn’t know what to do.” When she refused his demand, screaming “No,” he ripped the chain off her neck, and fled up the stairs. This entire encounter was fleeting.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

In this Criminal case, defendants filed a motion for an order dismissing this indictment. The defendants contend the doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable and would warrant a dismissal of these proceedings.

A Nassau County Criminal attorney said that in June 1969, five youths were arraigned upon a complaint in the First District Court, Nassau County, New York, charged with violation of New York State Penal Law § 105.The said defendants and each of them and each acting in concert with and aided and abetted by each other, with intent that conduct constituting a felony be performed did each agree with the other to engage in or cause performance of such conduct, to wit: the said defendants with the intent to violate § 130.35 of the Penal Law of the State of New York when by forcible compulsion they engaged in sexual intercourse with the complainant.’

4 of the youths were subsequently indicted by the Nassau County Grand Jury in July 1969 for the crimes of Rape in the First Degree and Sexual Abuse in the First Degree and arraigned in the Nassau County Court. The 5th boy was less than 16 years of age at the time of the alleged criminal acts and was charged with being a juvenile delinquent in the Family Court of Nassau County.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

While it is true that the arresting officer filed reports with the Housing Authority and with the Criminal Court, those files and reports are not available to the Housing Authority at this time. The certificate of disposition submitted by the petitioner clearly indicates that the charges were dismissed and sealed.

It is clear, therefore, that the Housing Authority does not have access to the files of the Criminal Court, the District Attorney, or even the files maintained by the Housing Authority’s Police Department, since it is a police agency. Accordingly, the imputed knowledge which ordinarily would be the equivalent of a prompt investigation does not presently fulfill that function in this case. Furthermore, these sealed records may be made available only to the defendant or his designated agent. It would appear that under these circumstances, the Housing Authority’s contention that it would suffer substantial prejudice if the petitioner were granted leave to serve a late notice of claim is meritorious.

When, as in this case, there is a real possibility that the sealing of criminal records might substantially prejudice the defendant in a civil action by precluding it from establishing a meritorious defense, the courts have applied the concept of implied waiver of the statutory rights.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

The petitioner man was arrested by a member of the Housing Authority Police Department in Queens. He was arrested for criminal contempt in the second degree (violation of an order of protection) and sexual harassment. The officer acted on the basis of information supplied to him by the person who was to be protected by the order of protection.

The petitioner was arraigned in the Criminal Court of the City of New York and remanded, apparently in default of bail. The charges were dismissed and all records sealed. While the certificate of disposition does not set forth the reason for the dismissal, the petitioner indicates that it was because he had never been served with the order of protection. The petitioner, acting pro se, served a notice of claim upon the City of New York in January 1992. Subsequently, according to the petitioner, the Comptroller’s Office advised him that the City was not the proper party to be given notice. The petitioner consulted with his attorney and promptly moved for permission to serve a late notice of claim against the Housing Authority, alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution resulting in mental anguish or suffering, shame and humiliation, ridicule and scorn, moral and mental degradation, loss of earnings, property loss and physical injury. Public Housing Law provides that all notices of claim relating to personal injuries must be presented to the Authority within 90 days and that all of the provisions of General Municipal Law shall apply to such notices.

The Supreme Court granted the application, and deemed the notice of claim to be timely served. This decision was predicated upon the finding that the Authority had actual knowledge of the facts constituting the petitioner’s cause of action. The court did not address the question of any possible prejudice to the Authority.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

At approximately 3:30 a.m., a woman was sleeping in her apartment which she left unlocked because she was expecting her boyfriend to come over. She was then awoken by a knock and believed that it was her boyfriend at the door. She thought that he had forgotten the key she had given to him. She instructed the person to come in believing it was her boyfriend. After the light was turned on, the woman realized that the man was not her boyfriend but was his twin brother.

Afterwards, they talked shortly and the woman told her boyfriend’s twin brother to lock the door when he left. The complainant then went back to sleep but was again awoken at approximately 5:00 a.m. She heard a knock at the door and heard a man voice saying to open the door.

The woman believed the man was her boyfriend because it sounded like him. She got out of bed and, curiously enough, turned off the light located near the door rather than turn it on. She then opened the door and thought it was her boyfriend who entered the apartment, as it was dark and she couldn’t see.

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information