New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: May 5, 2014

Penal Law § 220.25

by Stephen Bilkis

A Suffolk Marijuana Possession Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, rendered April 25, 2008, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, failure to signal, and failure to display a lit headlamp, upon a jury verdict, and sentencing him to concurrent determinate terms of imprisonment of 8½ years for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, seven years for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, three months for criminal possession of marijuana in the fifth degree, one day for failure to signal, and one day for failure to display a lit headlamp.

A Suffolk Drug Possession Lawyer said that, in another case, petitioner was charged with the violation “Unlawful Possession of Marijuana” in violation of Penal Law §221.05 and was issued a desk appearance ticket. He appeared for arraignment on May 28, 2003 and was released on his own recognizance by respondent provided that he submit to a supervised drug test and that he report home by 10:00 p.m. each night. This petition seeks an order in the nature of prohibition claiming that the respondent Judge exceeded her authority by imposing conditions which were not relevant to the issue of bail and which violate petitioner’s due process rights.

The issue in this case is whether the defendant’s appeal should be granted.

Published on: May 5, 2014

People v Kanhai

by Stephen Bilkis

People v Kanhai

Court Discusses Whether Business Records are an Exception to the Hearsay Rule under the Principle of Crawford v Washington

The criminal defendant was arrested and charged for one count of of driving a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol DWI under section 1192(1) of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. At the defendant’s bench trial, the defendant objected to the use of the exhibits which contained statements of individuals who were not called to testify. The defendant also objected to the use of the certified copies of field inspection reports, and the simulator solution lot analysis by police department technicians and scientists on the breath analysis instrument used in defendant’s breath alcohol test. The defendant relied on the Crawford v Washington 542 US 36 [2004], in his objections as the admission of the statements into evidence violated his Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The defendant argued that since he was not permitted to cross-examine the maker of the statements, who were the actual technicians, the documents were impermissible hearsay. According to defendant, the Crawford eliminated that the business records are an exception to the hearsay rule.

Published on: May 3, 2014

State and Federal Constitutions

by Stephen Bilkis

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, on April 24, 1972, the Suffolk County police, executing a search warrant at the premises of defendant, found evidence implicating him in a number of burglaries. As a result, defendant was indicted for the crime of burglary in the third degree and for two counts of grand larceny in the third-degree. He also faced a charge of petit larceny lodged against him in the District Court of Suffolk County. After an unsuccessful attempt to controvert the search warrant, the defendant pleaded guilty in the County Court to two counts of petit larceny, in full satisfaction of all the charges in the indictment. He also pleaded guilty to the petit larceny charge filed in the District Court. The Appellate Term affirmed the judgments of conviction.

The issue in this case is whether there was probable cause to support the issuance of the search warrant.

The police officer who applied for the warrant based his application entirely upon the sworn statement of one witness. The witness affidavit was annexed to the warrant application and was directly before the Magistrate who issued the warrant. The first paragraph of the affidavit consisted entirely of statements shedding light on witness personal background. The witness averred that he was 18 years old, single, unemployed, and that he resided with his parents at an address in Green lawn, New York. He also set forth his home telephone number. The remainder of the affidavit recited personal observations he had made and a report of statements he heard while at Hicks’ Huntington Beach residence two weeks earlier. While there, the witness, and defendant’s brother, went into the bedroom to drink beer and listen to stereo music. There was a safe in the bedroom. The brother told the witness that he and three others had ‘ripped off a house’ and had stolen the safe. He opened the safe, and a third individual, removed a shoebox ‘half full of grass (marijuana).’ The witness observed that there were also some fireworks inside the safe. The brother apparently quite proud of his criminal activity, told the witness that the stereo equipment in the bedroom had been stolen from a house. To top off the litany of crime, defendant for his that he also stole a new engine and two high-back bucket seats for his car. Based on this information, duly sworn to by Leone, a search warrant was issued.

Published on: May 3, 2014

The Supreme Court denied the motion for a mistrial

by Stephen Bilkis

In addition, the criminal defendant challenged the voluntariness of his statements to the police by testifying during the trial that they were the product of verbal threats and physical abuse by the police.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

“Upon a request by a defendant, the prosecutor shall notify the defendant of all specific instances of a defendant’s prior uncharged criminal, vicious or immoral conduct of which the prosecutor has knowledge and which the prosecutor intends to use at trial for purposes of impeaching the credibility of the defendant.”

Published on: May 3, 2014

Reilly v. Hults

by Stephen Bilkis

Reilly v. Hults

Court Discuses the Revocation of Driver’s License after Refusing to Submit to a Chemical Test

The Motor Vehicle Commissioner appealed the annulment of the revocation of the defendant’s license by the Commissioner after he refused to submit to a chemical blood test to determine the alcohol content of his blood for driving while intoxication DWI. The commissioner appealed to review and annul the findings of the Supreme Court dated October 20, 1961, under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act.

Published on: May 2, 2014

Grievance Committee’s motion

by Stephen Bilkis

A Suffolk Criminal Lawyer said that, by letter dated August 3, 2007, the respondent informed the Court of his conviction of serious offenses automatically resulting in the revocation of his license to practice law in New York State. Effective July 27, 2007, he ceased the practice of law. The Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District (hereinafter Grievance Committee) has now filed a motion to strike his name from the roll of attorneys, pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), upon the ground that he has been disbarred upon his conviction of grand larceny in the second degree, pursuant to Penal Law § 155.40, a class C felony, and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, pursuant to Penal Law § 170.25, a class D felony.

A Suffolk Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, on December 22, 2006, the respondent entered a plea of guilty in the County Court, Suffolk County, to one count of grand larceny in the second degree, pursuant to Penal Law § 155.40, a class C felony, and one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, pursuant to Penal Law § 170.25, a class D felony, in lieu of 50 counts, before the Honorable Judge.

A Suffolk Felony Lawyer said that, during the plea allocution, the respondent admitted that, in or about May 2002, he obtained ownership of a house and real property located at 96 Jefferson Avenue, Wyandanch, in Suffolk County, without the permission or authority of its true owner and by false pretenses. The respondent specifically admitted that he obtained ownership of that property by filing false deeds and other instruments with certain public offices, including the Suffolk County Clerk’s office. He filed those documents knowing that they were forged. The respondent was sentenced on July 27, 2007, to a term of probation of five years, restitution in the sum of $534,462, and a mandatory DNA fee in the sum of $50.

Published on: May 2, 2014

The Court credits the Officer’s testimony at the hearing.

by Stephen Bilkis

On April 22, 23 and 28, 2008, this Court conducted a hearing pursuant to defendant’s 710.20 motion to suppress a gun, the magazine in the gun and the nine rounds of ammunition in that magazine. The issue of preclusion of other recovered objects is not before this court. A New York Marijuana Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the People called one witness New York City Police Officer who was assigned to the 75 Precinct Anti Crime-Unit at the relevant times. The defense called another New York City Police Officer who, at the relevant times, was the former Officer’s partner in the 75 Precinct Anti-Crime Unit; New York City Police Department Detective who, at the relevant times, was assigned to the Gun Enhancement Unit; and who, at the relevant times, was working in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office. The Court credits Police Officer’s testimony as set forth below and makes the following findings of facts and reaches the following conclusions of law.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, on November 29, 2006, the said Officer was on anti-crime patrol with the Officer and Sergeant. They were in plain clothes in an unmarked police car. The Officer was in the right front passenger seat, the other Officer was driving and the Sergeant was in the rear. The Officer received training in the Police Academy, about five years earlier, regarding the packaging of marijuana. Moreover, as a police officer he had experience with marijuana possession in that he had made about ten arrests for marijuana during which he had been exposed to the odor of both burning and unburnt marijuana. In addition, he had assisted in about 20 other arrests involving marijuana during which he again was exposed to odor of both burning and unburnt marijuana. At approximately 1:10 A. M., the three officers were driving north on Georgia Avenue towards Linden Boulevard, an industrial and drug prone location. At that time there was no vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The Officers had their windows down so they could hear gunfire and smell drugs such as marijuana.

A New York Criminal Drug Possession Lawyer said that, as the officers proceeded north on Georgia Avenue, a light-colored Infinity with Connecticut plates passed them. When the Infinity was about a half car length or six to ten feet in front of the unmarked police vehicle, Officer smelled a strong odor of burning marijuana emanating from the Infinity. He mentioned this to the other two officers who agreed that there was an odor of burning marijuana. The officers followed about six to ten feet or more behind the Infinity for about a block to Linden Boulevard where it took a right and then proceeded on Linden Boulevard for a block to Sheffield Avenue. During this time the Officer continued to smell burning marijuana. Near the intersection of Linden Boulevard and Sheffield Avenue, the officers, using their lights and sirens, stopped the Infinity.

Published on: May 1, 2014

People v. Viano

by Stephen Bilkis

People v. Viano

Courts Discusses Whether Failure to File a Special Information was Fatal to a Felony Charge of Driving While Intoxicated

The defendant was indicted with driving while intoxicated as a felony, pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192(3). The defendant was previously convicted for driving while intoxicated prior which elevated the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony. However, the prosecution failed to file a special information regarding the defendant’s prior conviction at the same time as the indictment, pursuant to section 200.60 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The trial judge, after the defendant’s Queens County Criminal Attorney objected, granted the request of the prosecution to file the special information prior to the close of the People’s case. The defendant was convicted and appealed.

Published on: April 29, 2014

Defendant was criminally engaged in possession

by Stephen Bilkis

This is drug crime where defendants are charged with one count of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Second Degree.

The challenge is directed to the motivation for and legality of a search for stolen property which also resulted in the not surprising seizure of other items including cocaine, alleged to have been found in “plain view”.

A Suffolk County Drug Crime attorney said that defendants are brother and sister and at all times relevant to these proceedings were residents at the subject premises in Long Island, a one-family house on about three acres of secluded property approximately 300 feet from the road.

Published on: April 29, 2014

Matter of Karlin v McMahon

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a proceeding wherein the petitioner made a FOIL request to the New York City Police Department in November 2007, requesting documents relating to his rape arrest.

On 16 September 2008, petitioner commenced an Article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the NYPD denying his request. On 30 April 2009, the NYPD submitted documents for an In camera Inspection pursuant to this Criminal Court’s Order and Decision filed on 1 April 2009.

The Court, after reviewing the documents in camera, finds that the NYPD has made the requisite showing of proving exemption for these documents.