New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: January 30, 2018

New York Court of Appeals Determines if Defendant Was a Stranger to the Victim at the Time of the Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

The question before the court is whether the people have established through clear and convincing evidence that the defendant was a stranger to the victim at the time of the rape. The answer will determine whether he is a Level 2 sex offender based on the facts, the court says yes.

On February 21, 2017 the defendant plead guilty to rape in the 3d degree pursuant to Penal Law 130.25(3). He was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain to incarceration for 1 ½ years in state prison followed by 6 years of probation. He was released on June 20, 2017. The Board of Examiners for Sex Offenders recommend the court adjudicate defendant a level 2 sex offender based on various risk factors. One risk factor is challenged, risk factor number 7, which is the relationship of the defendant and the rape victim. The defendant introduced evidence that he and the victim were acquainted. The court says he is wrong.

The court agrees with the police report that the defendant was a stranger to the victim, who was 13 years old at the time and the defendant was 25. The victim and her classmate ditched school and took a subway to the Bronx. Her classmate met a male friend there, and the 3 “hung out” for awhile. The victim was the left alone in the defendant’s apartment and was raped during this time.

Published on: May 11, 2015

NY Appellate Court Discusses Methods of Measuring Intoxication in DWI Cases

by Stephen Bilkis

DWI in NY: Driving While Intoxicated – VTL 1192.3 Driving While Intoxicated is a dangerous habit among the drivers in the country. It is said that it is not just dangerous; the law likewise punished the drivers who are found to be intoxicated while driving. Driving While Intoxicated is just a part of crimes which are punishable while driving, the law also provides for the following crimes which can be violated while driving – DWI (Driving While Intoxicated), DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired) and DUI (Driving Under the Influence) – but regardless of the particular offense in New York (both NYC and Westchester), prosecutors and judges take these charges very seriously.

A New York DWI Lawyer said that we have handled numerous DWIs, DWAIs and DUIs here in our firm, whether they are charged as VTL 1192.1, VTL 1192.2, VTL 1192.2-a or VTL 1192.3. A particular question which a layman frequently asked us is “how can I be charged with DWI if there is no breathalyzer or intoxilizer that indicates how much alcohol I had in my system?” In answering their question, we first ask for the circumstances surrounding their problem. Once we already determined the main problem, we give them an advice which will benefit them. In the question stated above, the answer is quite simple. As we call it in the criminal law field, a person can be held liable for DWI even without a chemical test. This can be done by using the observation of the arresting officer based on the appearance of the driver and if indeed the latter was intoxicated. This is also known as the “Common Law” DWI.

Published on: October 26, 2014

Defendant Asserts that Presumption Under 165.15 is Unconstitutional, New York Appellate Court Weighs In

by Stephen Bilkis

An offender, indicted for the crimes of grand larceny in the second degree (six counts), grand larceny in the third degree (three counts), petit larceny (one count), criminal tampering in the second degree (five counts), and theft of services (five counts), brings this omnibus motion to (1) inspect the grand jury minutes and dismiss the indictment due to insufficient evidence before the grand jury; (2) to dismiss specific counts in the indictment because they are duplications of and inconsistent with other counts and (3) to dismiss the theft of services counts on the ground that the presumption created by section 165.15 of the Penal Law is unconstitutional.

The counts charged in the indictment arise out of the theft of approximately 3,391,000 cubic feet of gas from a Union Gas Company. The theft of gas was accomplished through bypasses, pieces of pipe attached to the gas company’s lines, which allow one who is not a gas customer to obtain gas by tapping gas company lines and receiving free service.

Published on: June 7, 2014

Court Looks at Case Regarding Suit Against Common Carrier for Disabled Patients

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal on July 29, 2009, Anne Graper called Access-A-Ride, a paratransit service in New York, to pick her up the following day and to take her to “Special Surgery Hospital” to visit her daughter who just had a hip surgery. According to Ms. Graper, the driver dropped her off at the wrong location. She tripped and fell when she tried to cross a crowded street to go to the correct building.

Ms. Graper sued the Metropolitan Transit Authority New York City, operator of Access-A-Ride, to recover damages for the injuries she sustained. She said that MTA, as a common carrier, has an obligation to see to it that she is safety deposited in the correct location given her age, health and previous history of falling.

Published on: June 6, 2014

NY Appellate Court Says Statutes of limitations are Different for Each Crime

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the statutes of limitations are different for each crime or civil action. It is important to learn what the statute of limitations is that a particular court action covers. However, statutes of limitations are not carved in stone. There are exceptions to the time periods that can make it possible for a person to file a case even after the time period has passed. Sexual assaults and child abuse cases have an exception because of the age of the victims. If a person is abused while they are still too young to file a case themselves, then they may file that case when they reach legal age without regard in most cases for the statute of limitations that is involved with the crime.

One crime of this type occurred when a young woman reached legal age to make a complaint against her father. She filed a claim that stated that between November 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009, her father victimized her repeatedly in a sexual and incestuous manner. She testified in court that it occurred in their home at 6927 Costa Avenue located in Queens County, New York. She stated that the first time that her father molested her, he gave her alcoholic beverages in an attempt to loosen her morals and memory of the encounter. He then forcibly touched her vaginal area against her will. She stated that the second time, he again plied her with alcohol and fondled her vaginal area. He also grabbed her breasts on several occasions and squeezed her bottom. During one encounter, he took her into his bedroom where he exposed his penis to her. At the time that these encounters began, the girl was between twelve and fourteen years of age.

Published on: June 5, 2014

Plaintiff Asks Court to Accept Late Filing Due to Unusual Circumstances

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on April 4, 2009, the police responded to a call for service at a family home in Nassau County. Upon their arrival, they discovered that the residents of the home, a man and his girlfriend had been engaged in a domestic violence situation. As a result of domestic abuse, the woman was complaining of abdominal pain. She was far along in pregnancy at the time of the altercation. She stated that during the fight, she had been pushed or struck and that the blow had caused her to fall to the floor. She had not been allowed to obtain prenatal care and her complaints were concerning to the officers. An ambulance was called to the scene and the woman was transported to Nassau University Medical Center to receive treatment.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that upon her arrival at the emergency room, doctors were concerned about the woman’s condition but only took brief examinations of her and promptly dismissed her from the hospital. On May 13, 2009, she returned to the emergency room complaining that she was having contractions. She was admitted into the hospital and doctors administered drugs to attempt to delay the delivery of the child. Since, the woman’s membranes had ruptured, doctors administered steroids to attempt to speed up the maturation of the baby’s lungs. The baby was subsequently born on May 13, 2009. At some point during his delivery, he was deprived of oxygen and blood through a compression of his umbilical cord. As a result, he was delivered with a brain injury that will result in his having to be cared for professionally the rest of his life.

Published on: June 4, 2014

Court Listens to Motion for Resentencing, Affirms NY Supreme Court Decision

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in this criminal case, the underlying drug crime involved a large quantity of cocaine possession. A Bronx Drug Crime Lawyer said that, defendant was indicted for first-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, but was permitted to plead guilty to third-degree possession and released on bail pending sentencing. Defendant absconded, remained outside this jurisdiction for many years, and was convicted of a new drug felony, all of which was in violation of his plea agreement. In addition, a Bronx Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant had absconded while awaiting sentencing on his conviction in Bronx County of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Bronx Drug Crime Lawyer said that defendant filed a motion for re-sentencing.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether defendant is entitled to his motion for re-sentencing.

Published on: May 31, 2014

New York Courts Discuss Restructure of Court System

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the Court Officers Benevolent Association of Nassau County (“COBANC”) is the exclusive bargaining agent for certain court employees located in Nassau County, including employees in the Major I title. The Petitioner, is currently the president of COBANC and co-petitioners, are all employed in courts in Nassau County in the title of Major I (JG 26).

COBANC has its principal place of business in Nassau County and the petitioners reside in Nassau County. The Unified Court System constitutes the Judicial Branch of Government of New York State, established and organized in accordance with Article VI of the New York State Constitution.

Published on: May 30, 2014

Court Decides Whether to Admit Reports into Evidence

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the grand jury of April 1975 submitted four reports to the court concerning four separate investigations. All four reports were submitted pursuant to provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and contain proposed recommendations for legislative, executive and administrative action in the public interest based upon stated findings. The Court is now required to determine whether an order shall be made either accepting and filing such reports as public records, or directing that such reports be sealed.

The New York State Constitution provides in part that the power of grand juries to inquire into the willful misconduct in office of public officers, and to find indictments or to direct the filing of information in connection with such inquiries, shall never be suspended or impaired by law. While the District Attorney is by statute a legal adviser to the Grand Jury, he may not dominate or control them in the lawful exercise of their primary function of making inquiry.

Published on: May 29, 2014

Defendant Convicted of Several Serious Sex Crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

A New York Criminal Lawyer said on May 11, 1993, the Court of Appeals of New York heard the case of On May 11, 1993, the Court of Appeals of New York heard the case of three appellants regarding sex crimes. The defendants had been convicted of multiple counts of rape and sodomy in the first degree. The defendants picked the victim up from outside a Manhattan dance club and took her to a Brooklyn apartment where they raped and sodomized her. At trial, defense attempted to introduce evidence that supposedly showed that the woman had previously engaged in group sex.

Defense claimed that the trial court had not applied the rape shield law properly at their trial. The defendants also claimed that they were deprived of their Federal constitutional right to present evidence and confront the witnesses against them. In addition, they claimed that the court did not instruct the jury that acquittal was required if the defendants mistakenly believed that the victim had consented to sexual relations.