New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Published on: March 4, 2014

Supreme Court, Queens County

by Stephen Bilkis

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that this is an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 11, 1982, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of the defendant’s motion to suppress physical and testimonial evidence.

A Queens Gun Crime Lawyer said that, defendant was indicted for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree as the result of an incident which occurred on the premises of the Four Towns Auto Body Shop in Queens County on December 30, 1981, in which a gun was recovered from the confines of a trailer located thereon. In the ordinary course of events, a motion to suppress the gun and certain allegedly incriminating statements was made by the defendant, and on April 6, 1982 the matter came on for a combined Mapp and Huntley hearing.

A Queens Felony Lawyer said that, at the hearing, the People produced but a single witness, Detective who testified, inter alia, that on the evening in question, he and his partner, were engaged in narcotics surveillance when a car that they had been following led them to the Four Towns Auto Body Shop in Queens. At this point, two individuals exited the car and entered a small work shack or trailer which was located on the premises. Notably, one of these two individuals was carrying a brown paper bag.

Published on: March 3, 2014

Blackberry capable with internet and email capability was recovered

by Stephen Bilkis

July 7, 2010, the Judge of the New York City Criminal Court reviewed and approved a warrant authorizing the search of 105 West 128th Street, Apartment 4, New York, New York and seize cocaine and crack/cocaine and drug paraphernalia as well as any records and currency that would be indicative of drug trafficking. A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, defendant is charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third and Fifth Degrees, two counts of Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana. Defendant moves to controvert the search warrant on the ground that it was issued without reasonable cause. Specifically, defendant claims that there is no nexus between the apartment that is the subject of the search warrant and the facts upon which the search of the apartment was ordered. Defendant also moves, pursuant to CPLR 2221(d), for leave to reargue the Court’s Order which granted the People’s ex-parte motion for a Protective Order pertaining to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the search warrant affidavit.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, according to defendant, he resided at 105 West 128th Street, Apt. 4, New York, New York for the past ten years. On July 8, 2010, at approximately 12:45 a.m., as defendant entered the ground floor lobby of 105 West 128th Street, the police rushed into the building and summarily seized and searched him. Two cellular phones, two keys to defendant’s apartment and $26.00 in United States currency was recovered from defendant. He was then handcuffed and subjected to a custodial interrogation in the lobby of his residence, which resulted in defendant making a statement to the police. The police had a search warrant for defendant’s apartment. However, defendant was not the subject of the warrant and the warrant did not authorize the search or seizure of any person “thereat or therein.”

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, upon execution of the search warrant, the police recovered 3,104 mg. of marijuana, 3,278 mg. cocaine, a .32 caliber magazine, six .32 caliber bullets, scales, zip lock bags, $70.00 in United States currency, an identification card in defendant’s name, a letter addressed to defendant and a computer. According to defendant the police recovered a total of $889.00 in this case. The warrant affidavit basically sets forth in substance, the following facts, namely, that the Detective received information from an undercover police officer relating to the sale of cocaine at the barber shop located on the ground and first floor level of 237 Lenox Avenue. Those observations were set forth in the affidavit for a search warrant.

Published on: March 3, 2014

Officer saw the defendant’s hands near the trigger housing of the gun

by Stephen Bilkis

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 23, 1982, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Queens Gun Crime Lawyer said that, on June 25, 1981, police officers received a radio transmission directing them to an address in Queens where a man was reported to be harassing two women with a gun. The uniformed officers proceeded to that address and knocked on the door. In response to an occupant’s query, the officers identified themselves as police officers. After a brief pause, the door of the apartment abruptly swung open revealing a man holding a shotgun which pointed towards the floor. Before the officers could draw their own weapons or take cover, the defendant raised the gun to shoulder level and aimed it at their heads. The other Officer saw the defendant’s hands near the trigger housing of the gun and heard a sound he associated with the trigger being pulled on a gun that misfires. Although the first Officer’s eyes were transfixed on the barrel of the gun, he heard the familiar click of a trigger being pulled. The defendant’s female companion testified that she watched as the defendant jumped up and back while pulling the trigger with his right forefinger. She also heard the resultant metallic click. The shotgun, however, failed to fire. As the officers retreated in an attempt to protect themselves, the criminal defendant escaped out of a rear window, taking the gun with him.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in convicting defendant of attempted murder in the first degree.

Published on: March 2, 2014

New York Public Health Law § 2805-d

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, in this action, the plaintiffs seek to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. They allege that the defendants were negligent in failing to timely diagnose and treat the plaintiff stroke symptoms as a result of which she suffered a stroke which has left her with permanent “locked-in” syndrome, a condition which renders her unable to speak or to move below the neck. The defendants seek summary judgment dismissing the complaint. They maintain that when they treated her, plaintiff did not present with stroke symptoms which are required before the drugs tissue Plasminogen Activator (“t-PA”) can be administered intravenously and that by the time that her stroke was diagnosed, the three-hour window of time in which that drug could have been given expired. In addition, a number of the defendants allege that they had no contact with her until after the three-hour window for the administration of t-PA expired, thus requiring dismissal of the complaint against them. As for their failure to administer the drug t-PA intra-arterially which has a six-hour window for its administration, the defendants maintain that that drugs was experimental and had not been approved by the Federal Drug Administration and accordingly, their failure to administer it cannot serve as grounds for a finding of malpractice.

A New York Drug Crime Lawyer said that, the plaintiffs maintain that the defendants unreasonably delayed in diagnosing her stroke in light of which the time in which both intravenous as well as intra-arterial t-PA could be administered expired with devastating consequences. The plaintiffs also maintain that the hospital, per the defendant failed to establish appropriate protocols and procedures for caring for a patient who presents with possible stroke symptoms and that the hospital also failed to enforce them which contributed to their failure to timely diagnose and treat plaintiff.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that, in their complaint and Verified Bills of Particulars, the plaintiffs fault the defendants for failing to be aware of or recommend that plaintiff discontinue Ephedra; failing to recognize the significance of her heaviness and tingling; failing to refer her to an appropriate specialist; failing to obtain a complete history regarding the onset of her symptoms; failing to appreciate the significance of blood pressure readings and the toxicology report; and, failing to timely diagnose her stroke and to administer t-PA. On their Amended Bill of Particulars, the plaintiffs fault the defendants for not following the doctor’s recommendations, failing to order further diagnostic tests, attributing the plaintiff’s condition to a drug overdose and failing to obtain appropriate consults by specialists. The plaintiffs also allege that the doctor failed to diagnose a stroke on the December 12, 2003 MRI/DWI. The plaintiffs also fault the doctor and the hospital for not establishing and/or following appropriate standards and protocols for treating patients with stroke symptoms.

Published on: March 1, 2014

Violation of the Fourth Amendment

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the People’s evidence consists mainly of testimony by the Police Officer that on June 12, 1977, he peered through the partially opened window of the brightly lit rest room at the rear of premises used as a bar. He observed the defendant enter with three or four other individuals. Defendant took a clear plastic bag containing white powder from the crotch of his pants and used a silver plastic spoon to scoop powder out of the bag. Although their backs faced the window, the Officer concluded that the defendant’s companions were snorting, i. e., partaking of the white powder the defendant offered to them. Defendant spooned the white powder from the bag separately for each of his companions. As defendant raised the spoon to each man’s face, the Officer could see the powder in the spoon. As defendant withdrew the spoon after the powder had been “snorted,” Anderson saw that the spoon was empty. He drew his conclusion from the motions they made with their hands, as well as from the noises they made.

A New York Drug Possession Lawyer said that, the Officer radioed his observation, including a description of defendant, to back-up officers who then entered the tavern. then observed a fellow officer enter the rest room and direct defendant and his one remaining companion (the others having left in the interim) to place their hands on the wall. Defendant dropped the contraband as he complied with this directive. The Officer then left his observation post, entered the tavern, proceeded to the rest room, and upon entering the latter, retrieved the bag of narcotics (cocaine) from the floor. He preliminarily frisked defendant for weapons in the rest room. At the station house, he searched the defendant and found a silver quarter teaspoon (measuring spoon) and $1,111 cash 1 in defendant’s pocket. The police testimony was credited by the Justice presiding at the Suppression Hearing and subsequently by the jury at trial, resulting in a judgment convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

A New York Cocaine Possession Lawyer said that, on appeal, defendant urges that the Officer’s surveillance of the rest room constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment not justified by exigent circumstances and without benefit of a warrant. He concludes that since the narcotics, the spoon and the money were seized as a result of the surveillance, these items should be suppressed.

Published on: March 1, 2014

A valid contract requires a meeting of the minds

by Stephen Bilkis

A man seeks to recover $1,492 from his opponent for damages obtained of his automobile while in their exclusive possession and control. The opponent then interposed an application, seeking dismissal to the complaint upon the sole ground of release of liability.

The matter started when the man was sleeping in his car while parked on the roadside. A county police officer arrested him under suspicion of DWI driving while under the influence of alcohol. The officer subsequently breathalyzed the man on the roadside and on the precinct with a 0.00 reading results.

The officer disputed the sufficiency of the breath samples provided and the accuracy of the <a breathalyzer results, and reported that the man refused to properly submit to a breathalyzer test.

Published on: March 1, 2014

Both officers ran to the front of the store

by Stephen Bilkis

A couple drove from Florida to New York City to visit some of their friends. After the first few nights, they settled in a motor inn. Later, as the couple drove past to a boutique, a woman’s clothing store, the woman stated that she like the black dress and wanted to check the sizes. The man then parked the car and the woman told him to go back way.

They entered the boutique through the front door. The bathroom of the boutique has a window which looks out onto the rear parking area. The woman went into the fitting room to try on some clothes, but the man wasn’t in sight when she came out. The proprietor of the boutique informed the woman that her companion had asked to use the bathroom. According to the proprietor, the man was there for about 10 minutes. The woman then went back to the fitting room and when she again came out, the man was already standing at the front window, front door and he had picked out a blouse for her to try on. Even if the woman didn’t buy anything she had seen, she did buy the blouse picked out for her by the man. The couple then left the store without incident.

Afterward, the couple went into Manhattan, where the man purchased an ankle holster for his gun. The woman remained outside the store while her partner bought it, and she wasn’t aware of what the man had bought. After that, the couple decided to get something to eat and the woman changed her clothes. They drove to a place and when they arrived, the man told his partner to stay in the car while he looked for another person. The man returned and they drove around, finally back into an alleyway and turning out the lights. When the woman asked her criminal partner what he was doing, he allegedly replied that he had some business there. The woman then stayed in the car to watch for the cops or watch for anybody while her partner broke into the back window of what turned out to be the dress boutique.

Published on: February 28, 2014

The facts are essentially undisputed.

by Stephen Bilkis

The court is called upon on this appeal to determine the constitutional validity of a seizure of physical evidence subsequent to a warrantless entry by police into a defendant’s furnished room based upon the homeowner’s representation that the defendant had therein a gun with which he had threatened her. At the time of the entry, the defendant was substantially in arrears in his weekly rental payments. Necessarily subsumed in analysis is the question of whether he had a legitimate expectation of privacy with respect to the room so as to entitle him to suppression of the physical evidence seized there from. The question must be answered in the affirmative. Inasmuch as the record reveals that the defendant was still legally a lessee of the subject premises, who thus had a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to his living space, the police acted improperly in pursuing the course of action they did.

The facts are essentially undisputed. A Queens County Grand Jury charged the defendant with the crime of criminal possession of a weapon based upon the discovery by the police of an automatic handgun in a closet of his rented room. The complainant, the owner of the one-family home in which the defendant rented a room at the weekly rate of $50, summoned the police to her home on the evening of August 10, 1982, claiming that the defendant had threatened her with a gun. The altercation arose when the defendant offered her $60 in rent arrears. She complained that he had failed to pay her for 11 weeks and that she would deny him access to his room until he made a more substantial payment. The defendant thereupon demanded the return of his $60. When the complainant refused to comply, he began to swear and to make threatening gestures towards her. He declared that he would break down the door of the room and blow off her head with his gun.

The complainant knew that the defendant had a gun in his room since he had threatened her daughter with it some two weeks previously. The defendant’s girlfriend had, at that time, warned the complainant to call the police since the defendant was dangerous and had once shot a man. The complainant had seen the gun a second time as she was packing up the criminal defendant’s belongings because he had failed to pay his rent. On that occasion, she also saw bullets all over the room.

Published on: February 28, 2014

The Court concluded that the defendant has failed to demonstrate that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a criminal case where a Motion was filed by the defendant for a change of venue of his trial from Queens County to another county to be designated by the court.

A Queens County Gun Crime attorney said that in February 1988, a police Officer was shot to death while he sat in his patrol car in Jamaica, Queens, guarding the home of a witness in a drug case. It is the theory of the prosecution that the Officer was executed on orders of a reputed drug kingpin in retaliation for the latter’s arrest, conviction and imprisonment on gun possession charges. Four individuals were charged with murder in the second degree as a result of this crime, three codefendants, who were previously tried and convicted and the defendant.

The killing of the Officer has been the subject of pervasive and, at times, highly emotional media coverage. News coverage intensified during the recent month-long trial of the codefendants, culminating in their conviction in March 1989. The killing of the Officer has also been the subject of much editorial comment decrying the brazen violence employed by those immersed in drug trafficking.

Published on: February 27, 2014

Criminal Term denied the motion

by Stephen Bilkis

A Queens Grand Larceny Lawyer said that, following a hearing, Criminal Term denied the motion to suppress the conversation on the ground that the former police officer was acting in the interest of the bank, that he was not acting in co-operation with the police, and that there was no duty incumbent upon the police to prevent him from talking with the defendant. Thereafter, defendant entered a plea of guilty.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in convicting defendant of petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty and imposing sentence.

It is axiomatic that the constitutional protections against self-incrimination do not apply to confessions elicited by private individuals. The actions of private individuals, however, do become subject to scrutiny for violations of constitutional limitations when those individuals act as agents of the government or when government officials participate in the act.