Articles Posted in New York City

Published on:

The plaintiffs in this case are the Auto Collection Inc, et al. The defendants in the case are Christopher Pinkow, et al. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County.

Case Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiffs, the Auto Collection Inc. is a corporation of New York and is licensed by the State of New York’s Department of Motor Vehicles to operate a car dealership. Auto Collection is in the retail business of selling cars. Steven and Joshua Lever are members of the Auto Collection. Autoland and LOV Motors, Inc. are exporters of cars and they purchase high end vehicles and other vehicles to sell to customers located in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. They have not been licensed by the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. Oleg Sakhontchik is a representative for LOV. Gleb Sakhontchik is a member of Autoland.

Continue reading

Published on:

This case is being heard in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department. The matter at hand deals with the attorney and respondent of the case, Eric Alan Klein. The petitioner in the case is the Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department.

The respondent was admitted to the bar on the 7th of March, 1984. This occurred during a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department. The respondent was admitted to the bar under the name of Eric Alan Klein.

Case Background

Continue reading

Published on:

The plaintiff in this case is the Banco Nacional Ultramarino. The defendants in the case are Maria F. Chan et al. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. Justice Lorraine Miller is overhearing the case.

Case Introduction

This case deals with complex financial transactions in the amount of $6,580,150 in stolen funds (white collar crime) from the plaintiff. The transactions spread across four continents, U.S. Secret Service, IRS, Interpol, the FBI, the United States Drug Enforcement agency, the United States Customs Service and both federal and foreign tribunals as well as banking institutions located around the world. The motion in this particular case deals with approximately $1,000,000 of the funds that are in New York.

Continue reading

Published on:

The plaintiff in the case is Joachim Harris. The defendants in the case are Chandra M. Young, et al. The case is being heard in the New York State Supreme Court. The Honorable Melvin S. Barasch is the justice hearing the case.

Case Facts and Background

The action in this case comes from the sale of a real property that was owned by the plaintiff. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the property is located at 176 Malta Street in the city of Brooklyn. The plaintiff sold the property to defendant Michael Greene on the 24th of August, 2001. The price was $255,000. The plaintiff states that he was defrauded by the plaintiffs as they withheld all but $180,000 from the sale of the home.

Continue reading

Published on:

This case involves a defendant who was convicted by the jury for attempted murder in the second degree and assault in the second degree. Finding two errors of sufficient import, the court ruled that defendant was deprived of a fair trial. Thus, a new trial was ordered.

On January 4, 1977, at approximately 10:30 p. m. the victim was returning to his home at 515 West 174th Street when he was confronted outside his fourth floor apartment by a man standing four or five feet away, pointing a black handgun at him (possession of a weapon). The gunman demanded money to the victim and when the latter raised his hands and replied that he had none, the gunman fired a shot, hitting him in the face, and then fled down the stairs. The victim recognized the gun man as the defendant as the criminal.

The wife of the victim heard shots outside her apartment, she opened the door and saw defendant standing by the stairway. Two men were running down the stairs. One was on the third floor, the other on the second. The wife described the man closer to her as tall and skinny with light brown hair in a medium Afro, and wearing a long dark coat with “something white” in the collar. At trial the victim was also to describe the man with the gun as tall with a “like blond” Afro, and wearing a long, dark coat with a white collar. The wife testified that the other man was tall, slim, with short black hair and wearing “something dark.”

Continue reading

Published on:

The Facts:

Defendant was employed as an assistant comptroller of a Hospital. Allegedly, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant was depositing checks payable to his employer in his own checking account. Thus, he was charged with five counts of grand larceny in the second degree. An audit by the Hospital revealed, and defendant admitted, that during the period from 1967 to 1972, such defalcations amounted to approximately $68,000.

According to defendant’s memorandum, and not controverted by the prosecution, the defendant was advised between his arraignment on 27 January 1976, and his plea of guilty on 24 February 1976, that if he made satisfactory restitution to his employer’s insurance carrier he would be allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor in satisfaction of the indictment.

Continue reading

Published on:

The rights that are provided to all citizens of the United States by the United States Constitution are considered integral to the operation of our government as a whole. One of these inalienable rights is spelled out in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A New York Criminal Lawyer said it is the right against self- incrimination in a criminal trial. The question of how far the right against self-incrimination extends can be argued as it was in 1960 when a group of attorneys were indicted for illegally soliciting legal business for their firm. They were later found guilty of criminal contempt of court and appealed their convictions.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the attorneys were charged with contempt of court for refusing to testify in a case against another attorney and invoking the Fifth Amendment protections toward that end. They contend that they could not testify against one of the attorneys that they worked with without incriminating themselves. They further contend that the Grand Jury was being used illegally by the office of the prosecutor to obtain statements from them that would be used in later cases to prosecute them. They were subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Jury in regards to a case against a co-worker involved in illegally soliciting business. The attorneys each appeared as they were subpoenaed, however, upon being called to testify, they each presented the court with a letter invoking their rights to remain silent in order to not incriminate themselves.

The prosecutor then asked to speak with them outside of the hearing of the Grand Jury. Each attorney was told that the Grand Jury was prepared to grant them immunity in the current case if they testified before the Grand Jury. Each one was called back in and the foreman of the Grand Jury was instructed by the prosecutor to direct each of them to answer the question. The question was posed and the order was given. The attorneys still refused to testify. A New York Criminal Lawyer said following the Grand Jury court, the prosecutor presented each of the attorneys with the charge of contempt of court. They were arrested, tried, and found guilty. Each of them filed appeals of the verdict stating that it was unconstitutional to charge them with contempt of court for failing to provide testimony that would tend to incriminate them.

Continue reading

Published on:

The plaintiffs and appellants in the matter are B.B.C.F.D., S.A., etc., et al. The defendants and respondents in the case are Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., et al., and Mina Persyko. The case is being heard in the First Department, Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.

The plaintiff in this matter is seeking to appeal a verdict that was made on the 7th of November, 2008. The previous order dismissed some of the claims that were made by the plaintiff and denied the motion from the plaintiff to recall and modify the complaint.

Case Background

Continue reading

Published on:

The plaintiff in the case is Joachim Harris. The defendants in the case are Chandra M. Young, et al. The case is being heard in the New York State Supreme Court. The Honorable Melvin S. Barasch is the justice hearing the case.

Case Facts and Background

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the action in this case comes from the sale of a real property that was owned by the plaintiff. The property is located at 176 Malta Street in the city of Brooklyn. The plaintiff sold the property to defendant Michael Greene on the 24th of August, 2001. The price was $255,000. The plaintiff states that he was defrauded by the plaintiffs as they withheld all but $180,000 from the sale of the home.

Continue reading

Published on:

Arlene Lichtenstein for herself and as the Administratrix of the Estate of Irwin Lichtenstein, deceased, is the plaintiffs in the case. The defendants in the case are Alfred Polizzotto, Florence Polizzotto, Sol Cohen, Al Gallo, and Rosemary whose last name is not known. John Doe 1, 2, and 3 are also defendants in the matter. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. Judge Peter Tom is overseeing the case.

The defendants have moved to have the amended complaint against them dismissed. They state that the complaint does not state a cause action as determined by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The plaintiff is accusing the defendant Alfred Polizzotto of converting the assets of the plaintiff and the assets of the Estate of Irwin Lichtenstein for his own personal benefit and use. The plaintiff states he was acting in concert with the other defendants in the matter.

Continue reading

Contact Information