Published on:

Penal Law § 130.15

In November 2009, the Suffolk County District Attorney indicted the respondent on one count of grand larceny in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 155.40, one count of forgery, in violation of Penal Law § 170.10(2), one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 170.25, and one count of insurance fraud in the third degree, in violation of New York Penal Law § 176.20.

A Suffolk County Criminal attorney said that in February 2011, in the County Court, Suffolk County, the respondent was convicted, after trial, of grand larceny in the second degree, in violation of Penal Law § 155.40, and insurance fraud in the third degree, in violation of Penal Law § 176.20.

The respondent’s conviction emanated from his theft of money paid by his insurance carrier, to be held in escrow, for the reconstruction of his Westhampton Beach home after it was destroyed by fire in 2008. Countrywide Home Loans, the lender holding the mortgage on the respondent’s home, never received or endorsed the check issued by the insurance company for reconstruction of the house.

Thereafter, the respondent was sentenced to a prison term of 3 to 6 years on the conviction of grand larceny in the second degree and a prison term of 1 to 3 years on the conviction of insurance fraud in the third degree, and directed to pay the sum of $863,473 as restitution.

The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District moves to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(b) based upon his felony conviction. The respondent has neither opposed the Grievance Committee’s motion nor submitted any papers in response.

By virtue of his felony conviction, the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90(4)(a), and was automatically disbarred in February 2011. Accordingly, the Grievance Committee’s motion to strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law is granted, and the respondent’s name is stricken from the roll of attorneys based on his disbarment.

In another Criminal case, the defendant filed a motion for an order (1) to inspect the Grand Jury minutes and to dismiss this indictment; (2) a Huntley Hearing; and (3) discovery of a copy of any and all alleged written statements made by the defendant to law enforcement authorities, and for a transcript, if any, of alleged oral statements made to law enforcement authorities herein.

A Suffolk County Criminal attorney said that a review of the Grand Jury minutes indicates that evidence before the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to support every essential element of rape in the first degree by forcible compulsion. What is lacking is corroboration of the identity of the perpetrator. The alleged act occurred approximately one and one-half hours prior to the effective date of the Laws of 1972 Chapter 373 amending Penal Law § 130.15, Sex Offenses; Corroboration.

The leading Court of Appeals case, makes application of revised Penal Law § 130.15 Ex post facto with respect to the crimes alleged in this indictment. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different testimony, then the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender’ renders application of revised Penal Law § 130.15 Ex post facto.

This reasoning also applies to the other counts of this indictment, ‘if this were not the rule, then it would be easy for a prosecutor or a Grand Jury to evade the requirement of corroboration by charging assault with intent to commit rape or third degree assault.’

Based solely on the failure to corroborate the material element of identification, this Court reluctantly dismisses all counts of this indictment and authorizes the People to resubmit the charges to another Grand Jury. Thus, the Court denied defendant’s motions 2 and 3 for being moot.

Here in Stephen Bilkis and associates, we have Suffolk County Criminal attorneys will help you in your criminal case filed against you. We will defend you in Court and protect you from abuses. For other cases, you can consult our Suffolk County Robbery lawyers and help you prosecute the persons who robbed you.