New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: September 20, 2013

Defendant was not observed engaging in any overt criminal activity

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was observed by Officers walking in front of a building on Lexington Avenue. The officers also observed through the glass doors of that building that two people were standing in the vestibule area and appeared to be having an argument. The second Officer entered the vestibule area. The other officer approached the defendant and asked him what he was doing. He did not give defendant an opportunity to answer but, rather, pressed a second question: whether defendant knew the two people in the hallway. Defendant denied knowing them. The officer then directed defendant into the hallway.

A New York Criminal Possession of a Lawyer said that, meanwhile, in the hallway, the second Officer was frisking one individual, who was facing the wall with his hands stretched upward against the wall. The second person observed in the hallway was in a corner of the vestibule watching the proceedings. When the first Officer came into the hallway, no weapons had yet been found in the possession of either the individual or the defendant. Ultimately, defendant was found to be in criminal possession of a weapon and an ammunition clip. As they passed the doorway, the officers looked through the glass door and saw two men, in the vestibule talking and waving their arms. The officers parked their car and continued to observe all three men. The two men in the hallway appeared to be having an argument, and one of the men, had an amount of currency in his hands. Defendant continued going back and forth between the apartment house door and the curb, and looking into the hallway. The actions of these three men appeared to the officers to match a pattern of so-called hallway robberies, with the man on the street as a lookout.

Published on: September 12, 2013

New York Court Reviews Evidence in Lawsuit Against Theatre for Showing Alleged Pornographic Materials

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 22, 1971, while the Petitioner Amusement Corporation was the operator of a Theatre, it and its theatre manager were charged with criminal information violating the obscenity statute Penal Law. The basis of the charges was the showing of two allegedly obscene sex motion pictures and two allegedly obscene advertising trailers.

Pursuant to an order to show cause, a hearing was held at Criminal Term of the District Court on the issues as to whether an adversary hearing should be conducted to determine whether the films and trailers are obscene, and whether a warrant should be issued for their seizure. The Court ordered that such a hearing be held and it was thereafter adjourned.

Published on: September 6, 2013

Defendant Appeals Grand Larceny Conviction

by Stephen Bilkis

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction after trial rendered by the County Court, Bronx County, sentencing defendant-appellant to 3 1/2 to 7 years in State Prison after he had been found guilty of criminally receiving and criminally concealing stolen property, as felonies. A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, this defendants, not apprehended, were indicted, charged with the crimes of grand larceny in the first degree; criminally receiving stolen goods as a felony; criminally withholding stolen goods as a felony, and conspiracy.

A Bronx Grand Larceny Lawyer said that defendant was found guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the first degree, defendant-appellant was convicted of the crimes of criminally receiving and criminally withholding stolen goods as felonies, with the disposition heretofore indicated. The conspiracy count was withdrawn after summation by defense counsel and before the case was submitted to the jury.

Published on: September 3, 2013

New York Court Discusses Privacy Considerations Regarding Medical Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal action, a motor vehicle accident occurred in June 2007at the intersection of Hungry Harbor Road and Rosedale Road in North Woodmere, New York. An officer was responded to an emergency call that a female was grabbed on the street and dragged into a car. Upon receiving the call, he drove without lights and sirens eastbound on Hungry Harbor Road through a residential area toward Rosedale Road. It was at this point that the officer’s vehicle and defendant’s vehicle collided. Plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant’s vehicle.

According to a Nassau DWI Attorney, a field breathalyser test on defendant was conducted at the scene which revealed her blood alcohol level to be. 15. Defendant was arrested at the scene of the accident for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). Plaintiff commenced a personal injury action against defendant, the County and the officer in 2007. The latter and his wife also brought an action for DUI against the defendant in 2009.

Published on: September 1, 2013

New York Court Discussed Conspiracy Charges

by Stephen Bilkis

In this criminal case, a Bronx Grand Larceny Lawyer said that defendants-appellants, members of the New York City Police Force, were indicted, together with another, for the crime of conspiracy in the second degree, (Penal Law 105.10) grand larceny in the first degree (extortion), bribe receiving, receiving reward for official misconduct and official misconduct. At the trial, the latter two counts on official misconduct were removed from jury consideration. The jury acquitted on the charges of grand larceny and bribe receiving, but convicted on the charge of conspiracy in the second degree.

The issue in this case is whether defendants are guilty of conspiracy.

Published on: August 18, 2013

New York Court Discusses if First Degree Robbery Charge is Appropriate

by Stephen Bilkis

In the late evening on the 24th of October, the defendant along with another individual accosted and robbed a victim as she was walking along a street in Manhattan. The defendant displayed what looked like a handgun, but was just a toy pistol. The other individual had a knife.

The defendant and the other individual were arrested and by way of a four count indictment were charged with first degree robbery, two counts of second degree robbery, and first degree criminal use of a firearm.

Published on: August 12, 2013

New York Court Discusses Admissibility of Lab Report as Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A case was filed against a 15 year old boy for allegedly handing another minor a glassine envelope which apparently contained heroin. Penal Law 220.03 and 220.39 under this court’s jurisdiction provides that such act would constitute a drug crime if committed by an adult. The defendant’s counsel moved that the evidence which points to the minor be suppressed for not being seized under circumstances allowed by law. The court denied the petition and insisted that the seizure of heroin from his jacket was executed after taking into consideration the constitutional safeguards granted by law to each and every person. The counsel of the petitioner offered as evidence the police laboratory report which provides the analysis of the substance seized from the accused. The defendant’s counsel contended that such a report cannot be considered by the court unless the chemist who prepared the report appears in court for the purpose of cross examination.

The court decided contrary to the respondent’s assertion, arguing that the admissibility of an official police laboratory report with the absence of cross examination was an exception to the hearsay rule which provides that no statement of any person shall be admissible in court unless such person concerned attests to its authenticity and accuracy. The court argued further that according to established jurisprudence in criminal law, the hearsay rule admits certain exceptions. Among these are the general business document clause as provided in CPLR4518(a) and the ones provided in CPLR4518(c) and CPLR4520 which provide respectively that a record certified by an employee of a department or bureau of a municipal corporation and certificate of a public officer are not within the ambit of prohibitions as mandated by the hearsay rule. The court cited several case laws, mostly concerning marijuana possession, crack possession, LSD possession, heroin possession and ecstacy possession, explaining the rationale behind the exceptions. The court in these cases asserted the presumption of regularity that is accorded to documents released by public officials in the regular course of their employment.

Published on: August 8, 2013

NY Court Decides Motion to Amend Pursuant to CPL 100.45(3)

by Stephen Bilkis

Respondent has been charged with Grand larceny; Criminal Possession of Stolen Property; and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle. Petitioner moved to amend the petition to include three additional charges against respondent: Petit Larceny; Possession of Burglar’s Tools; Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree. Respondent submitted an Answering Affirmation and Cross Application for Dismissal, and petitioner submitted a Reply Affirmation which includes a further motion to amend. All of the pleadings and proceedings had herein have been considered in reaching the court’s decision.

The first issue to be addressed in deciding this motion to amend is whether C.P.L. § 100.45(3) is applicable as contended by petitioner, or whether C.P.L. § 100.45(2) is the appropriate subsection as posited by the respondent. The former criminal subsection applies to amendment of an Information, while the latter subsection applies to amendment of a Prosecutor’s Information. Therefore, application of the appropriate subsection depends on the classification of a juvenile delinquency petition as analogous to an Information or Prosecutor’s Information, which appears to be an issue of first impression.

Published on: July 31, 2013

Defendant Raises Constitutional Issues in His Defense

by Stephen Bilkis

An appeal was made by the defendant man from a judgment of the Suffolk County Court convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. It is ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was indicted for criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree, class A-I felonies. The charges arose out of a sale of nearly nine ounces of cocaine to an undercover police officer. The defendant was permitted to plead guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, a class A-II felony. He was promised a term of incarceration of five years to life. The promised sentence was imposed.

Published on: July 30, 2013

Defendant Files Appeal After Being Convicted of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance

by Stephen Bilkis

A man filed an appeal from a decision convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled drug in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

The defendant man claims that the Supreme Court made a mistake in not dismissing the charges based upon the fact that the trial testimony of the complainant woman’s principal witness differed from the testimony which he gave before the grand jury. However, while it is proper, after a plea of guilty, to review the validity of an indictment based solely upon false testimony, where, the decision of conviction follows a proceeding, the adequacy of the evidence to convict is apparent from the record.