New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: August 10, 2012

Court Reverses Decision in Robbery Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Suffolk Drug Crime 23

The People of the State of New York are the respondents in this case. Peter Wayne Orth is the appellant. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department. The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that was rendered on the 8th of March, 1977. The judgment convicted the defendant of robbery in the first degree upon a jury verdict. The defendant has two other orders from the same court, one from the 15th of October 1979 and the other from the 5th of January, 1982, both denying the motion for the judgment of conviction to be vacated and the indictment dismissed.

Case Background

Published on: August 10, 2012

Court Confirms Warrant for Arrest Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves the People of the State of New York against Daphne Barber, Timothy Barber and Eric Jean as the defendants. The case is being heard in the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County Part II. The defendants in the case, Timothy Barber, Daphne Barber, and Eric Jean have been charged with one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree. Defendant Daphne Barber has laso been charged with criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.

Defendants Argument

The Barbers have motioned both orally and in writing for two search warrants that were issued on the 24th of June and the 2nd of July in 1981 to be removed and for all the evidence including the cocaine (cocaine possession) that was seized to be suppressed. Defendant Eric Jean did not move with respect to the indictments against him and is not a part of this hearing.

Published on: August 10, 2012

Defendant Alleges Jury Misconduct

by Stephen Bilkis

The People of the State of New York are the respondents and Zachary R. Gibian is the appellant in this case being held in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department. The defendant is appealing a judgment made by the Supreme Court of Suffolk County that was issued on the 17th of January, 2007 and convicted him of murder in the second degree.

Defendant’s Argument

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant identifies three grounds for this appeal to reverse his conviction. The first is for the preclusion on the grounds of hearsay of the statements that were made by the defendant’s mother. The second is juror misconduct during deliberations. The third is the summary curtailment of the closing statement made by the defense counsel.

Published on: August 10, 2012

Court Looks at White Collar Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. or “MERS” as the nominee for the America’s Wholesale Lender and its successors are the plaintiffs in this case. The defendants in the matter are Carole Folkes, the New York City Environmental Control Board, Baront Associates, LLC, the Judication Bureau, the New York City Transit, and John Doe (name is being withheld). The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Judge Schlesinger is hearing the case.

Case Background

The action for this case started in 2005 and should have been a straightforward matter involving a foreclosure. However, there have been several issues that have come up in regard to the issue. The action has required an intervenor, Baron Associates, LLC. A New York Criminal Lawyer said Baron filed a cross claim against the defendant Carole Folkes and another counter claim against the plaintiff Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The index number for the case is 2005, but a note of issue was not filed in the matter until December of 2009.

Published on: August 9, 2012

Court Hears White Collar Crime Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

White collar crimes have long been considered the type of crime where appropriate punishment for the actions is not received. In many cases, deals are struck between the offender and the suspect that are designed to reduce the public exposure of the crime and there is no consideration for the actual punishment of the offender. While there have been many cases in which this has happened, one in particular stands out. It involved a man who was working as the assistant comptroller at Long Island College Hospital in the Prospect Heights Division. A New York Criminal Lawyer said while he was employed in this position, he received numerous checks that were made payable to the hospital, but that he endorsed and deposited into his own personal bank account.

When the actions of this man became known to the hospital, the man was terminated and an audit was conducted to determine the extent of his embezzlement. They determined that between 1967 and 1972, the man embezzled $68,000. He admitted to the theft and he was arrested. He served five days in jail after his arraignment. During this time, he met with the insurance provider for the hospital. They decided between them that he would pay a little over $10,000 in restitution to the hospital. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the insurance company would provide the remainder of the money that he stole to the hospital. In return for his restitution, the prosecutor agreed to reduce the charge from a felony to a misdemeanor crime and that he would get three years of probation. They agreed with the court that everyone was satisfied with this arrangement. However, once the restitution was paid and the case went in front of the judge, the judge refused to accept the deal.

The judge determined that the man was currently living in Connecticut in a new house that was remodeled. The man had a new job working in Connecticut and there were rumors that he had stolen much more from the hospital than the $68,000 that he had been charged with. It seems that the hospital lost all of the records that it had prior to 1967 in a flood. The man had been an employee of the hospital for several years before 1967. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that some of the estimates placed the amount stolen well in excess of six digits. The judge determined that the defendant should serve one year in jail and three years on probation. The defendant and the prosecution objected to the change in the proposed arrangements. The prosecution stated that the hospital had received restitution of the entire amount that it lost and that the state should not be concerned that only $10,000 of that came from the defendant.

Published on: August 9, 2012

Court Looks at Legality of State Statute

by Stephen Bilkis

The complainant trader who committed an error was indicted and convicted, under the Revised Statutes of the State, for the criminal act of selling liquor without a license. The indictment contained several specifications but they were all similar.

The jurors, for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, upon their oath present, that a trader man from Georgetown, in said county, he not being then and there first licensed as a retailer of wine and spirits, as provided in the Revised Statutes of said Commonwealth, and without any license therefor duly had according to law, did presume to be, and was, a retailer of wine, brandy, rum, and spirituous liquors, to a buyer, in a less quantity than twenty-eight gallons, and that delivered and carried away all at one time, and did then and there sell to the said buyer, two quarts of spirituous liquors, and no more, against the peace of said Commonwealth and the form of the statute in such case made and provided.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said a criminal conviction having taken place under the indictment upon the statutes, the trader filed several exceptions. It appeared upon the trial that some of the sales charged in the indictment were of foreign liquors, and his Honor directed the jury that the license law of the Commonwealth applied as well to imported spirits as to domestic, and that the Commonwealth could constitutionally control the sale of foreign spirits by retail, and that said law is not inconsistent with constitution or revenue laws of the United States. The accused trader excluded to the ruling.

Published on: August 9, 2012

crim

by Stephen Bilkis

In this case, the court granted the appellant’s motion for a stay of the temporary injunction issued by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said respondents were the owners and operators of a motion picture theatre which has been showing the film, ‘I Am Curious (Yellow).’ They were indicted by the Suffolk County Grand Jury for possessing with intent to exhibit an obscene film in violation of Mass.Gen.Laws, c. 272, § 28A. Subsequently, respondents brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to enjoin future prosecutions for the showing of ‘I Am Curious (Yellow)’ and to declare that prosecution and the Massachusetts statute unconstitutional.

The indictments were then dismissed, and new indictments were thereafter returned. Respondent’s request for a temporary injunction barring the second prosecution was denied by the District Court. Respondents were convicted of the state obscenity offense.

Published on: August 9, 2012

Defendants Contend Out of Court Identifications Should Be Supressed

by Stephen Bilkis

On July 11, 1977, in their Coral Gables home, a couple was robbed at gunpoint by two men, who took several items of jewelry and other valuables and then fled. The husband had had a recent eye operation and could make no identification. The wife, on the other hand, got a good look at and was able to describe them both. For a period immediately after the criminal act, however, the identity of the men who made the assault remained unknown.

On July 16, 1977, Suffolk County, New York police officers, serving a warrant on a totally unrelated charge, arrested one of the men who robbed the couple at a condominium in which he and his fellow robber were living in Long Island, New York. A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that in the course of that arrest, the officers seized pieces of jewelry from a bedroom in the apartment. The trial judge held and the state concedes, that the seizure was unlawful and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The effect of that determination is the focus of their appeals. This is so because the taking of the jewelry led directly to the identification of the two robbers as the perpetrators of the Coral Gables criminal acts of burglary and armed robbery.

Indisputably, the occurred is an entirely fortuitous fashion. As a matter of routine, the Suffolk County authorities sent descriptions of the jewelry they had seized across the police teletype to several, apparently randomly selected, cities throughout the country. The teletype information came to the attention of Coral Gables police officers investigating the criminal act. The police officer thought he recognized some of the described items as having been taken from the couple and requested the Suffolk County police to forward photographs of the jewelry and of the persons who had occupied the apartment from which it was taken. The New York authorities complied with the requests. On August 24, 1977, the Coral Gables police showed the wife first the written descriptions, and then the photographs of the jewelry seized from the condominium. She positively identified several items as having been taken from her home during the robbery assault. As a result, about two weeks thereafter, on September 13, 1977, the officers displayed to the wife a photographic lineup which contained the pictures of the two robber men obtained from Suffolk County. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the lower court specifically determined and no attack is made on the finding that the photo lineup itself was fairly conducted and was not improperly suggestive. Upon viewing the photo display, the wife quickly and with certainty identified the pictures of both men as those of the offenders in question.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Defendant Contends Pat Down Was Illegal

by Stephen Bilkis

Police officers are required to operate under strict adherence to the laws of the state. That means that every time that a police officer comes in contact with a citizen, they are required to operate under certain rules. A New York Criminal Lawyer said these rules are mandated in the United States Constitution, state laws, federal laws, local ordinances, and case law. In order to determine if the officers have overstepped their authority under the law, it is often critical that a defendant hire a good criminal attorney to represent their side.

The rules of search and seizure and admissibility of evidence can be very complicated and they are often argued in a court of law. A New York Criminal Lawyer said each case is different, and each case requires that the persons who are affected by the conduct of police officers on the street are well represented. One case that illustrates this issue occurred in New York on May 14, 1985.

Two patrol officers were patrolling the area of Eighth Avenue around 136th street. It was in the early morning hours of about 2:30 a.m. when they were flagged down by a well- dressed man who was standing beside the road. When they talked to him, he told them that he had been leaving a bar in the area when he noticed a man in front of the bar with a pistol tucked down the front of his pants. The man described the pistol as a small revolver that was commonly referred to as a snub nose. He stated that it was black in color and was in the front of the man’s pants. The complainant was especially concerned because he was afraid that the man was considering a hate crime against the homosexual population in the area. The bar that he had been in front of was a bar that catered to the homosexual population. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said the complainant advised that he had followed the man and his companion as they left the area of the bar hoping to flag down a police officer to have him checked out. He described the man with the gun as a short black male in a white t-shirt and dark blue jeans. He stated that he was in the company of a man in a darker shirt with light blue jeans.

Published on: August 8, 2012

Defendant Contends Identification Procedures by Police Incorrect

by Stephen Bilkis

Stalking is a crime that affects everyone who is around the intended victim of the crime. Stalking is a crime that causes a pervasive level of fear that is intolerable for most people. However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said people who have never seen this crime often have a difficult time understanding that the stalker is so focused on their victim that they often do not consider the penalty involved in their actions. The drive to possess that other person is so strong that they will often do anything within their power to have that person and to prevent anyone else from having that person.

In 2008, a woman was being stalked by her ex-boyfriend in New York. She had moved on with her life and was seeing a co-worker romantically. One day while they were at work, her ex-boyfriend showed up. A Staten Island Criminal Lawyer said he began insisting that the woman talk to him. The new boyfriend approached the pair and assessed the situation. He realized that the situation was about to get violent and had the man removed from the business. He thought that the incident was over, but the following day while they were driving to work, the ex-boyfriend drove up beside them on the roadway and brandished a knife in their direction. They refused to pull over and began driving toward the local police station. On their way to the police station, the stalker rammed their mini-van with his car.

Coincidentally, a patrol car was positioned at the street corner just up from the location of the assault with the motor vehicle. The officers heard the impact that they recognized in their experience to be the result of a motor vehicle accident. They immediately turned their patrol car onto the roadway in the direction of the impact sound. When they were on the road, they observed the mini-van and the couple inside the mini-van. The couple motioned to the officers that the car that was behind them needed to be stopped. The officers observed the stalker driving at a high rate of speed in reverse. He changed his direction and began to take evasive action. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the officers turned on their emergency lights and siren to indicate to the driver of the vehicle that he needed to pull over.