New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: April 12, 2012

DWI Defendant Contends Roadblock was Illegal

by Stephen Bilkis

A county sheriff established a roadblock with the purpose of screening drivers to identify persons driving under the influence of alcohol. At the aforementioned time and place, every car passing the roadblock location was stopped by the uniformed sheriff in order to make observations of the drivers to determine if they were driving while intoxicated.

Consequently, a New York DWI Lawyer said that one of the deputy sheriff stopped a vehicle. The uniformed sheriff stood in the middle of the road and signaled the driver to stop his vehicle. The man stopped his vehicle in a normal manner. The sheriff walked over to the driver’s side of the vehicle, and shined his light into the vehicle. The sheriff observed that the man’s eyes to be bloodshot. The man, without being asked, rolled down his window and spoke to the deputy sheriff who then noticed the odor of alcoholic beverages coming from the man’s breath.

As a result of the deputy’s observation of bloodshot eyes, and the odor of alcohol upon the man’s breath, he asked the man to exit the car and come over to the side of the road for further investigation. All of the cars which passed the roadblock on that event were observed and the entire operators of all of the motor vehicles were asked with questions in the same manner as everyone else. After the man exited his car, the deputy sheriff observed the man’s speech to be slightly slurred, and again detected an odor of alcohol upon the man’s breath, and concluded that the man’s ability to drive a vehicle might be impaired.

Published on: April 12, 2012

Defendant Contends he is Eligible for Judicial Diversion Program

by Stephen Bilkis

A man was arrested during the execution of a search warrant in his reported residence. The search warrant was based in part upon an undercover police officer’s sworn allegations that on 13 separate occasions the man, while acting in concert with co-accused sold cocaine and heroin. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the accusation charges the man and his companion, with felony conspiracy for cocaine and heroin and conspiring to commit Criminal Sale of Controlled Substance.

The Criminal Procedure Law defines those accused persons who are eligible for Judicial Diversion as ones charged with certain Class B, C, D, and E felony drug offenses, or those charged with specified nonviolent offenses as long as they do not have a disqualifying condition listed in the law. If the District Attorney consents, a non-eligible accused will be deemed eligible. The list of eligible crimes is specific and does not include every nonviolent felony.

Robbery in the Third Degree and felony DWI, both nonviolent offenses, are not specified eligible crimes. Disqualifying conditions include convictions within the past ten years for felony or a violent felony; those who have a prior second violent felony or persistent felony offender adjudication; and those who are presently charged with certain violent felony offenses. Prior adjudications for disqualifying crimes may also be considered by the court in determining eligibility.

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Rules on Divorce Admist Domestic Violence Allegations

by Stephen Bilkis

Plaintiff (husband) and defendant (wife) were married on 17 July 1997. The parties have two (2) infant children. The above entitled divorce action was filed by plaintiff on 30 June 2005.

Both plaintiff and defendant blame each other for their failed marriage. Both plaintiff and defendant each allege that the other was verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive during the course of the marriage. During the pendency of the herein matter, based on criminal charges pending against both plaintiff and defendant, the physical custody of the infant children was changed by the Court twice. The defendant has had temporary physical custody of the infant children since 15 April 2008.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the Court conducted a non-jury trial with respect to the matrimonial action on March and April 2010. Plaintiff called one witness to testify at the trial while defendant called four witnesses. At the request of the Attorney for the Children, the herein Court conducted in-camera interviews of the two (2) infant children.

Published on: April 11, 2012

Defendant Charged with Marijuana Possession

by Stephen Bilkis

Recently, a good deal of attention has been given to the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Some states have legalized medicinal marijuana use. Some states have decriminalized the private use or possession of less than one ounce. In New York City, it is still illegal to use, possess, or purchase marijuana. While drug possession is still a crime, other less obvious issues surrounding marijuana are being played out in courts all over the United States.

A New York Criminal Lawyer says that people believe that is they are good parents and take good care of their children that no one can take them away. What they do not realize is that sometimes, even good parents are scrutinized by a judicial system that has the power to remove their children from them. This is a terrifying situation. No one wants to believe that the state would come in and take away their children. That is something that happens to other people, bad people, not to the average parent. That image of people who have to fight the system to keep their children is not accurate. Sometimes, there are people who are lousy parents. People can be cruel and people can be clueless when it comes to the welfare of their children. The laws of the state of New York clearly detail that if a parent misuses alcohol or drugs to the extent that it places their children in in actual or imminent danger of impairment to the physical, mental, or emotional condition of the child. The Family Court Act § 1046 also states that there must be a showing of a threshold of serious and ongoing substance abuse. The object of this law is to protect children from serious harm or potential harm. It was not designed to punish parents for behaving in an undesirable manner.

It is possible, that a parent who uses marijuana only once can have their children removed. A New York Criminal Lawyer said it seems unconscionable that the state would take away a person’s children for testing positive for marijuana on one occasion, but it has happened. In fact, one such case was decided in Kings County Family Court in Kings County, New York on January 26, 2012. The incident surrounded the petition from the Administration for Children’s Services to find a mother guilty of child neglect because on the date of her child’s birth, she and the child tested positive for marijuana. The toxicology report was not specific as to when the marijuana had been consumed, if the mother had endangered her child by consuming it, or if the mother had even become intoxicated at the time that the drug entered her body. Interestingly enough, this case brings up the question of what would happen if the drug had entered the mother’s body through second hand smoke. For instance, the mother was passing through a closed in area where other people were smoking marijuana. It could conceivably enter her body in that fashion. She may or may not feel any effects of the drug, but she would probably still test positive on a toxicology report for the drug. That question will have to be answered in a different court case.

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Decides if Defendant is Guilty of Criminal Mischief

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused defendant is charged with assaulting his former girlfriend in the presence of their three children. The trial testimony established that during the assault, the victim attempted to call 911 for police assistance (using a land-line telephone) and she made a very brief initial contact, but was then immediately thwarted by defendant, who bound the victim’s wrists with the telephone cord and then slammed the telephone on the victim’s hands/fingers as she tried again to dial 911. At some point, however, during the incident the abused victim was able to complete a 911 call using the same telephone.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the jury acquitted defendant of assault in the third degree but convicted him of attempted assault in the third degree, three counts of endangering the welfare of a child and criminal mischief in the fourth degree; the last one is the subject of defendant’s instant motion.

The primordial issue in is whether or not the evidence adduced at trial was legally sufficient to establish the necessary elements of criminal mischief in the fourth degree.

Published on: April 11, 2012

Court Prohibits Sex Offender From Seeing Wife as a Condition of Release

by Stephen Bilkis

In 1999, petitioner was arrested for rape in the first degree and thereafter convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree. The victim, who was his girlfriend at the time and is a petitioner in this proceeding, later married petitioner while he was serving a subsequent prison term in connection with a 2004 conviction of burglary in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the petitioners participated in Family Reunion Program visits three times between October 2006 and October 2007.

In November 2008, petitioner appeared before the Board of Parole, which issued a decision setting the conditions for his anticipated release from prison. In light of the sex crimes committed by petitioner against his wife, as well as evidence of a history of domestic violence between the two, the Board imposed several conditions, including the requirement that petitioner refrain from “associating in any way or communicating by any means with his wife without the permission of” his parole officer.

Petitioners requested the removal of the aforesaid special condition with the Division of Parole but were, thereafter, denied. Hence, petitioners commenced the instant proceeding challenging the condition.

Published on: April 10, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction Issue Where Domestic Violence Incident Occured Out of State

by Stephen Bilkis

Often, questions of law arise in family violence situations that are unique because they are involving a domestic situation that is volatile and fluid in nature. Families are rarely stationary. The question of jurisdiction and venue become relevant when a family primarily resides in one state, but encounters a violent episode while out of state visiting relatives or on vacation. The law is expected to draw a line that determines who is responsible for protecting the victim or victims as the case may be. The law in New York has a long history of struggling with this concept.

In 1962, New York had a family court law that stated that the victim of domestic violence would have to have their case heard in the family court. This decision was designed to decriminalize family violence. However, the effect that it had was far from the one intended. Rather than providing additional options for handling abuse and domestic violence, it created a situation where criminals could elude criminal prosecution. In 1977, the state revised this law. This revision stated that the Family Court and the criminal court would have concurrent jurisdiction. In 1978, the law was revised further to include the three day rule. It stated that the victim had three days following an incident to decide if they wanted to pursue the case in either criminal court or family court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the complainant’s choice of either criminal or family court became final after the three days. These amendments were an attempt to provide more effective relief to victims of domestic violence. The idea was that they would provide more remedies to the victims of domestic assaults. In 1994, the state legislature created the 1994 Act. It eliminated the three-day choice of venue. The 1994 Act allowed true concurrent jurisdiction to exist. There was no longer the chance that an offender could escape criminal punishment if the victim chose to have the case handled by family court. Since it is a true concurrent jurisdictional provision, a victim can proceed in both criminal and civil court at the same time.

In 1999, amended the Family Court Act 812 and the Criminal Procedure Law § 530.11 to enable a complainant to proceed in family court and have the criminal court continue to hear the criminal offense that was involved. This legal amendment was created to clarify the intent of the 1994 Act. It is generally assumed that the legislative history of domestic violence laws in New York demonstrate a desire to expand the jurisdiction of Family Court and strengthen the remedies available to the victims.

Published on: April 10, 2012

Court Considers Revocation of Gun License in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 29, 2006, a man was involved in a domestic dispute with his wife. His wife told the New York Police Officers that during this dispute, her husband punched and kicked her and that she punched and kicked him. Pursuant to New York Law, the officers discovered that the husband had a residence permit for a target pistol. When they collected the firearms in the home, they discovered that the husband was also in possession of two long guns, rifles, for which he did not have a permit. The husband’s pistol license was suspended pending an investigation into the matter.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that in June 30, 2006, a Temporary Order of Protection was issued in Kings county New York for the wife against the husband and for the husband against the wife. These protection orders were issued following several additional domestic disputes involving this couple. On September 19, 2006, after a heated verbal dispute with his wife in a public restaurant, the husband was arrested. The arrest was eventually voided. However the fact that he had a history of domestic violence and had been in possession of two long guns illegally in his home, his license to have any guns was revoked.

On December 30, 2006, the man requested an administrative hearing in order to repeal the revocation of his gun permit. His argument stemmed from his assertion that his wife had caused the domestic violence incidents and that he had never been notified of a renewal date for his long guns. The husband stated that he had not been aware that he was supposed to notify the police department of any arrests or orders of protection as they related to his possession of guns.

Published on: April 9, 2012

Court Decides Jurisdiction in Domestic Violence Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The discretion of Family Court in New York to handle incidents that have occurred in other states or even other countries has led to many courtroom discussions. The Family Court laws in New York are clear in that they do not limit jurisdiction to events that simply occur in New York. In these laws, New York Criminal Court has concurrent jurisdiction with New York Family Court. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the deciding factor becomes whether or not the family resides in New York. In a case where the entire family no longer resides in New York, the person who is being served with the New York Family Court Documents must be served in New York. The reason for this division is that if the offender is not in New York, there is no imminent threat of further domestic violence to the family. However, if all parties are in New York long enough for the alternate person to be served, then the threat has continued. If the threat has continued, then jurisdiction relies on New York to protect the family from violence.

On December 21, 1989, a New York family who had moved to Florida had an altercation in Florida. During the altercation, the victim claims that the abuser, her husband, grabbed her by the hair pulling it out, slapped her and threw her onto the back patio of their house. The victim claims that also in Florida on January 16, 1990, the husband beat their six year old son, bruising his back, legs, and buttocks. The victim also claims that during the week of January 21, 1990, that her husband watched as she tried to close a window for the second time. He told her that she will never live to do it a third time.

The victim advised the court in New York that she and her family had moved to Florida in July of 1989. She stated that she had been afraid that if she did not move with him that he would take her children away. On February 1, 1990, shortly after the last incidence of violence, the victim moved back to New York with her children. She was afraid for her safety, so she moved into a shelter in Monroe County. On February 16, 1990, while she was living in the shelter, she was granted a temporary order of protection. It was later extended to April 27, 1990. A Long Island Criminal Lawyer said the husband was served in New York since he has weekly, supervised visitation with the children.

Published on: April 9, 2012

Defendant Tries to Manipulate Court System to Intimidate Wife

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence issues are complicated. For many years, it was easier for the American judicial system to simply not deal with it. The political climate has changed and with it, the domestic violence laws have changed. We now understand that domestic violence is about control. Sometimes, an abuser cannot accept that the control over the other person has been removed by the state. In some cases, the aggressor attempts to control the court by manipulating the legal system. This type of behavior offensive to the judges and will turn the judges favor away from that person.

In one case like this, which was heard in the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County on October 1, 2010, the situation began on May 5, 2010. A man filed a petition to the court on June 30, 2010 claiming that his wife had illegally locked him out of their apartment located at 1880 Valentine Avenue in the Bronx. However, neither party appeared in court and the petition was dismissed. On July 12, 2010, the man filed a second petition alleging that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment. This time he claimed that the lock out had happened in February of 2010. This time, the wife appeared in court, but the husband did not. The court dismissed the man’s petition again.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the man filed a third petition to the court. This time he claimed that his wife had illegally locked him out of the apartment on July 16, 2010. In this petition, he stated that he had called the police. When the police arrived, they ordered him to leave. Both parties appeared in court on July 23, 2010 in reference to this petition. At that time, the court was notified that on July 16, 2010, Bronx County Family Court had issued each party a Temporary Order of Protection against the other. The wife’s Protection Order directed the husband to stay away from the wife and the three minor children who live with her at 1880 Valentine Avenue. These orders expressly stated that the husband was excluded from that residence. He was also ordered to stay away from the wife’s place of work and not to have any communication with any of the people who lived in the apartment. This is most certainly why the police ordered the husband to leave when they were called to the apartment. Family Court did order that the father could have visitation with his infant child at a location away from the apartment. At that time, the court order for visitation listed the husband’s address as 1160 Wheeler Avenue in the Bronx. The court determined that Family Court was the best resolution to the dispute and dismissed the petition that the husband had filed.