Domestic violence and physical assault can result to a lot of other inconveniences other than the fact that your life is already endangered. Domestic violence for instance doesn’t just stay inside the house. It goes out to the neighbours and even to the victim’s relatives who live far way. This particular case did not only affect the victim’s physical and emotional state, it also affected her community and her chances of staying in a community wherein she can afford and identify because of her years of stay.
Published on:
New York District Court Rules on Due Process Challenge
The United States Constitution is the highest law in the land. All other laws are derived from its provisions and are based on it. What happens though when a law is challenged as being against the Constitution? Can a law actually be challenged as being against the Constitution?
On December 4, 1998, the District Court of Nassau County, New York, made a decision on one such matter. The issue in this case was whether or not two provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law were actually constitutional. The man who raised the challenge said that because these two provisions did not provide for an adversarial evidentiary hearing to be raised by the defendant, they violated the right of an individual to due process. The man did not argue that those provisions were unconstitutional in his situation but that they were unconstitutional, period.
Published on:
New York Courts Apply Family Court Act to Domestic Violence Case
A 30-year old man filed an illegal lockout proceeding after his wife locked him out of their apartment. A family court granted an order of protection directing the husband to stay away from his wife and their three minor children who reside with the wife. The husband was also directed to stay away from his wife’s place of employment and to refrain from any communication or other contact with his wife and their child, except court-ordered visitation with their infant child. The order of protection provided that the husband may have supervised visits with his infant daughter on Saturdays between noon and 5:00 PM.
According to sources, the wife was forced to lock her husband out of their apartment because of continuous acts of violence he has inflicted upon her and their child.
Published on:
New York Court of Appeals Finds Defendant Charged with Murder Didn’t Receive Fair Trial
On January 17, 2003, a man was found guilty by the County Court of Chenango County of murdering his wife. His motion to have this decision vacated, or set aside, was rejected without a hearing.
Let’s review the facts of the case. According to reports, a car accident occurred at the Guilford Lake in Chenango County on April 3, 2002. When the Sheriff’s Department rushed to the scene, they found a man standing at the top of an embankment and saw the taillights of a car submerged in the lake. When they interviewed the man, he said that his wife was driving when a deer ran into the road. She swerved and the car plunged into the lake. Her body was later found at the bottom of the lake, beside the car.
Published on:
New York has created a system designed to streamline the problems
New York has created a system designed to streamline the problems that arise in prosecuting domestic violence cases in the court system. Historically, cases of domestic violence are often heard in several courts at the same time because of the very nature of the offenses. This is especially true if the domestic violence issue escalated through its continuation. A domestic violence case could conceivably begin as a subject violates traffic laws to either harass the other party or to get away from the other party. Since traffic infractions are considered to be minor legal torts below that of a misdemeanor. It would be historically sent to traffic court.
If after committing the traffic violation, the suspect then commits a misdemeanor crime, that crime would be heard in the state court of misdemeanor crimes. Felonies would be heard in the superior court of the state. Because, domestic violence cases often have elements in each of these courts, New York decided to pass the one case one judge policy. In this system, called the Integrated Domestic Violence system, one judge is assigned to one family. All of the cases that involve that family, from the most minor traffic to the highest felony are then heard by one judge appointed to their problem. In order for the judge to be able to hear all of the cases, the judge has to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Published on:
New York Court Finds Order of Protection Doesn’t Apply Where Parties Don’t Live Together
On August 7, 2009, the Family Court of Kings County New York received a petition for an order of protection. The Order seeks to prevent the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children from having contact with him. The petition arises from a situation where the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children got angry with him and on June 19 of 2009 placed several phone calls to the subject. These phone calls were of an insulting, threatening, and harassing nature. The subject is sure that the calls came from the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children. In addition to these phone calls, this subject maintains that the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children has also physically threatened him on at least three other occasions in the last seven months. The subject, a man from Kings County, stated that these occasions have placed him in fear. He fears that live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children will physically harm him in some way. He requests that the court issue this order of protection which would prevent the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children from coming close to him. He requests that it limit live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children from getting on his property, or place of business, and would prevent him from having any contact at all with this Kings County man. The Kings County man also acts that this petition limit the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children from being present while the Kings County man visits with his children. This Kings County man makes this application to New York Family Court in Kings County.
The reason that this petition is of interest is because of the nature of the relationships involved. In order for a case to be considered by the Family Court of Kings County, the party who requests the petition, in this case the Kings County man, and the person with whom the order is directed, in this case the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children, must have a domestic relationship. In this case, the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children have a domestic relationship in that they live together in the same residence and have a romantic relationship together. The Kings County man who is the petitioner on this order of protection has a domestic relationship with the mother of his children in that she is the mother of his children. However, the Kings County man and the live in boyfriend of the mother of the subject’s children do not have a domestic relationship as defined in the statutory law.
Published on:
Petitioners File a Late Notice of Claim with New York Appellate Court
It was a fateful day of April 18, 2007 when a mother, her companion, and a home health care worker were murdered by her own twenty-year-old son criminal who committed suicide after he accomplished the bloody murders that involved his own mother and companions. The petitioner is the victim’s seven-month-old son, brother of the murderer and sole heir who was not there when the murders happened in his family. The other petitioner is the father of the sole heir and who is now appointed as administrator for the estate of the decedent.
The petitioners made a motion for leave of court in May 2008 in order to file a late notice of claim charging infliction of emotional anguish, remiss in supervision, wrongful death, as well as gross neglect on the part of the police department. The city contradicted the said petition as it ascertains to all possible causes of action other than the claim with association to that of wrongful death.
Published on:
New York Appellate Court Rules There is No Incident That Requires Wife’s Protection from the Court
Domestic violence is much harder to accept because the perpetrator is a family member. There are many undocumented domestic violence cases because not only do victims get traumatized, they are also afraid of the outcome of the case, which usually means the breakdown of a family unit. This is a case between a married couple and a parole officer. The husband is forbidden to contact his wife without the parole officer’s permission. The special condition stated by the Supreme Court was to permit the husband to see his wife, even during out-of-curfew hours, as long as the wife wanted to see him, as well.
These provisions were agreed upon by the husband. He agreed to follow the curfew policy set by the parole officer. However, the husband appealed to remove the curfew clause and be with his wife. Although this was not a violation of his rights, he was still denied to visit his wife during non-curfew hours. But if his wife wanted to do so, he could visit her. In this case, is very important to consider the desire of the wife to see his husband. The court also convicted the husband of rape, domestic violence and assault.
Published on:
Court Decides Neglect Case Filed Against Father
On January 19, 2005 a King’s County man filed a petition with the Kings County Family Court seeking custody of the two children that he believes to be his that were born to a woman with whom he has lived for a number of years including the years that she was pregnant and the children. The father requested sole custody of the children because he claimed that since he has not been living with the children and their mother, they have shown up with burns and other injuries from accidents with their mother. Due to the allegations that the children are in harm, Judge Emily Olshansky of Family Court Kings County ordered an emergency investigation into the matters at the home.
The mother in this case filed a family offense petition on the very same day in Kings County Family Court seeking an order of protection against the father for her and the children. Her petition states that the father of the children has hit her and elbowed her in the face in front of the children causing them to be considered neglected by him. She claims that he uses drugs and is armed or has access to a knife and guns. The mother also seeks sole custody of these children.
Published on:
New York Appellate Court Discusses Sex Offender Level Assessment
On November 19, 2010, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York heard the case of the People v. James D. C, Defendant-Appellant regarding a sex crime. The defendant wanted an order that determined him to be a Level 3 risk appealed. He says that the court made a mistake when it in set forth its findings, which is required by law. It is true that the court failed to do this, but the Court believes that the record is sufficient for it to make a decision. The court rejected the notion that the court made a mistake when it assessed 20 points against the defendant for his relationship with the victims and 25 points for using drugs or alcohol.
The defendant was employed as a bus driver of mentally disabled women at the time of the sex crimes. He said that he chose these women because he thought that they would not be capable of reporting the sex crime. Twenty points were assessed for this since the defendant had a professional relationship with them. Furthermore, the defendant began drinking alcohol when he was 11 years old and using additional drugs over the years, such as marijuana, LSD, and angel dust. He admitted that he was addicted to cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol and this evidence justified the assessment of 25 points for that risk factor.