Articles Posted in Staten Island

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer the appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered May 24, 1977, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress statements.

Judgment reversed, on the law, motion granted, plea vacated, and case remitted to the County Court for further proceedings consistent herewith.

A New York Robbery Lawyer said that on February 18, 1976 the defendant and his accomplice, EF, entered the Tru-Value Gas Station in Farmingdale, Long Island, and ordered the 16-year-old attendant to hand over all of the money. The attendant gave them the money in the cash register. At this point, EF ordered the boy to kneel down facing away from the robbers. EF then shot him and the boy died shortly thereafter.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that from the records, in a Criminal Court Complaint, the People assert that a Police Officer observed the offenders at the Subway station. The officer allegedly watched the offenders “acting in concert” receive United States currency from four individuals, “in exchange for which the offenders swiped a Metrocard through the subway turnstile for each of these individuals, thereby allowing the said individuals to enter the transit system.”

The offenders were charged with Petit Larceny, five counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Third Degree, and Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, all Class A misdemeanors. By motion, one of the offenders seeks the dismissal of all charges contained in the Criminal Court Complaint, asserting that the People’s complaint is facially insufficient and pursuant to CPL Sec. 170.35, 100.40 and 100.15, asserting that the People’s complaint is facially insufficient.

Their motions were granted in part, and denied in part for the reasons stated below:

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant in a non-jury trial is charged with having committed the crime of Grand larceny in the First Degree by stealing a certain promissory note of the value of more than $500. owned by the Financial Corporation. The theft is alleged to have been committed by the use of fraudulent and false representations to the effect that certain accounts receivable were valid outstanding accounts representing sums due and owing to the defendant.

A Kings County Criminal attorney said that the defendant and his company, were indebted to the Finance Corporation in the sum of $10,000. As evidence of the debt, the finance corporation held a note in that sum. When the note was two or three weeks past due, the defendant requested a renewal of the note and offered a number of accounts receivable as collateral security.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the financial corporation refused to renew the note or to extend the time for payment thereof but stated that it would accept the accounts receivable in part payment of the note. Since the accounts receivable amounted to less than the amount owing on the note, the defendant, in effecting the payment of the full amount of the note, delivered a check for the difference.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant is charged with two counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree for two separate incidents that occurred on June 17, 1998. The defendant was employed by a construction company as a telemarketer. His job was to do “cold-calling” to sell home improvement services. He telephoned each complainant in an attempt to sell such services. Both complainants separately refused to purchase home improvement services from defendant. When they did so, he called each one a “dumb nigger” and hung up. There are no further allegations of threatening or coarse language during the short duration of the respective phone calls.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in June 23, 1998, the defendant admitted to the Detective that he did telephone each complainant and that he did call each complainant a “dumb nigger.” The defendant is a 49-year-old male with significant mental problems, who has been seen by a psychiatrist for many years and is under medication. In a letter from the defendant’s therapist, Elise Thompson, she states that this is not defendant’s usual manner of behavior, that he was under pressure the day he spoke with each complainant, and that the words were spoken out of frustration. Defendant’s employment has always been in the telemarketing field, with no prior complaints from customers.

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant claims that his comments constitute protected speech under the First Amendment’s right of free speech and expression, and that an individual cannot be punished for biased thought or expression. Further, he contends that this case should be dismissed for legal insufficiency because there was no continuing series of calls evincing an intent to harass. The defendant seeks an order dismissing the accusatory instruments filed against him as being insufficient on their face, upon the ground that the allegations of the offenses charged do not constitute a violation of the statute.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was an executive of several corporations engaged in the distribution and operation of coin-operated equipment whose enterprises reached into four of the five boroughs of New York City as well as Nassau and Suffolk Counties. In recent years his business ventures grew and prospered to such an extent that the self-appointed ‘family’ of sharers in the prosperity of honest businessmen determined that the time had come for him to share his wealth–‘to give up a piece’ of his business. Sometime during the early part of June, 1964 a concerted effort was commenced to extort $25,000 from him as well as a 25% Share of his business interests. As the arrangement was explained to him, ‘If at the end of (a) week you have $1 left, (we) take 25 cents and you keep 75 cents.’ Defendant, unmoved by the ‘family’s’ generosity and shaken by an assault on his wife by certain members of the ‘family’, described to him as ‘animals’, contacted the Nassau County police.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that during the month of June the police, with the consent of defendant through the use of wiretaps and bugs, recorded numerous conversations of him and one individual known to his ‘family’ and ‘animals’. These recordings clearly established the existence of an extortion conspiracy on the part of another individuals and others. As defendant’s adamance persisted through June, the ‘family’ apparently became more anxious. On the morning of June 30, 1964 defendant’s daughter, then pregnant and residing in Plainview, received a call which, from its contents, could only have been made by one of the ‘animals.’ The daughter was advised that ‘if your father doesn’t cooperate we’ll come and kick your pregnant belly in.’ With this threat to the family of defendant, the District Attorney’s office determined that it could best protect him and his family and determine precisely who was responsible for the threats by recording the telephonic communications made by the other individuals and from several bars which they frequented and from which they had previously communicated with him.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said that, in a petition and affidavit filed pursuant to section 813–a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an assistant district attorney of Nassau County asked for a court order to make the necessary wiretaps. In testimony made under oath the assistant district attorney related, with particularity and detail, the events which had transpired.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this is an application, pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, for an order prohibiting the District Court of Nassau County and the judges thereof from taking any further steps or action in connection with a prosecution of the petitioner except as a youthful offender.

A Nassau DWI Lawyer said that, on October 2, 1958, petitioner was charged, in the District Court of Nassau County, with a violation of § 20, sub. 4 and § 11, sub. 1 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law of the State of New York, each being misdemeanors. He was then eighteen (18) years of age. Upon arraignment he applied for youthful offender treatment. The District Attorney recommended that petitioner be investigated for the purpose of determining whether he was eligible to be adjudged a youthful offender. The petitioner signed the necessary consent required by § 913-g, sub. 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereupon the judge then presiding ordered an investigation to be made by the Probation Department of Nassau County to assist him to determine whether petitioner was eligible to be adjudged a youthful offender. The Probation Department, because of its great volume of work with more pressing and serious cases, said it could not make the investigation requested and remitted the matter to the District Court. Because he had no probation report before him, the judge then presiding denied petitioner youthful offender treatment and ordered the case tried in the Traffic Part of the District Court rather than the Youth Part. Immediately following this ruling, and prior to trial, petitioner appealed therefrom to the County Court of Nassau County. That court dismissed the appeal as being one from an intermediate order and therefore not appealable.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, petitioner now seeks this remedy contending that the action of the District Court has unjustly deprived him of a right and the protection afforded him under Title VII-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Proceedings Respecting Youthful Offenders).

Published on:

The defendant applies for three judicial subpoenas duces tecum or subpoena for production evidence to be directed to governmental or municipal entities. These subpoenas would require the production in Court of various police records relating to the crimes charged in the indictment, personnel records of the complainant police officers, records of the District Attorney’s office as to other complaints of assault made by these police officers, and records of the Freeport Human Rights Commission relating to complaints made against these police officers. The District Attorney and the Freeport Police Department have appeared in opposition.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that at the outset we are called upon to determine what issues may properly be considered upon an application pursuant to CPLR 2307. The defendant contends that CPLR 2307 merely charges the Court with the duty of performing an essentially ministerial act. She argues that the sole consideration before the Court is whether original documents or copies should be produced. This proposition is not without support. However, CPLR 2307(b) provides that, as a general rule, the production of photostatic copies constitutes compliance with a subpoena issued under CPLR 2307(a). As the Practice Commentary recognizes, to construe CPLR 2307(a) as requiring only that the Court decide whether originals or copies are to be produced, renders that statute meaningless in light of CPLR 2307(b). This Court cannot so construe an act of the Legislature. Case law indicates that upon an application for a judicial subpoena duces tecum the Court may consider various issues including the materiality and relevancy of the items sought to be subpoenaed, the specificity of the demand, and the public policy involved, if any.

The use which the defendant intends to make of the items which she would have us subpoena is the decisive factor in determining whether these applications should be granted. A subpoena duces tecum may not be used for the purpose of discovery or to ascertain the existence of evidence. Rather, it is a Court process which directs an individual to appear together with books, documents, papers or other items in his possession so that by reference to these items he may give testimony relevant to the matter under inquiry and, through the production of evidence, assist in the pursuit of truth. Where it is apparent that a party does not intend or cannot hope to offer testimony which refers to the items subpoenaed but merely seeks discovery and inspection, his application should be denied.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered March 22, 1985, convicting him of rape in the first degree (two counts), sodomy in the first degree (two counts), rape in the third degree (two counts), sodomy in the third degree (two counts), and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that Following his arrest in connection with the alleged sexual assault upon the 14 year old female complainant, the defendant gave a statement in which he admitted that he and the codefendant had, on the evening of January 1, 1984, offered the complainant a ride in their car, given her alcoholic drinks, and then taken her to a secluded location where the two men had sexual intercourse with her in the back seat of the car. The defendant claimed, however, that he was not aware of the age of the complainant and that she had consented to sexual activities.

The issue in this case is whether the court erred in convicting defendant of the above-mentioned sex crimes.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in this Criminal case, an Associate Village Justice of this Court, signed a search warrant directed to “any police officer of the County of Nassau.”

A New York Criminal attorney said that the Senior Building Inspector submitted what may be described as an exhaustive affidavit in support of the application. The Court wonders why, in view of the thoroughness of this affidavit and the apparent pre-warrant investigation, that a search and search warrant were needed at all unless the Village is simply trying to test the legal waters in this case to determine whether they may have another tool at their disposal, namely search warrants, that they may use to enforce the Village’s zoning and building code laws. The application for and the execution of a search warrant may in themselves deter the proliferation of illegal housing. The execution of a search warrant is an extremely frightening event for those subject to it. The court questions the need for this warrant because there is no legal requirement that a warrant be obtained in order to take photos of the outside of the premises from a public thoroughfare in front of the home.

However, a New York Criminal Lawyer said this Court finds that the Village has acted in good faith attempting, for example, to obtain the homeowner’s consent for the search prior to seeking the warrant and no doubt believing that similar actions have been approved and utilized in other villages without challenge.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, at that time, respondent was at the scene of a drug raid for the purposes of purchasing marijuana. He refused the order of a police officer to leave and was arrested for disorderly conduct. As he was being placed under arrest, he pulled out a six-inch hunting knife and attempted to stab the officer. As a result, he was also charged with attempted assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. Following arraignment on these charges, he was released on his own recognizance and then engaged in various criminal acts in New Jersey, which resulted in his arrest and confinement at Greystone Psychiatric Center. During his confinement, which lasted from May 17, 1984 until April 29, 1986, respondent reported aural and visual hallucinations, claiming in one instance that he was seeing snakes, bugs and images of Satan and was hearing voices telling him to get a gun and blow his brains out. He also claimed that he communicated with God, worked for God, was God, that he feared that Satan would kill him because he was an archangel, and that he was depressed and wanted to die.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said as a result of the observations as well as examinations of respondent, was diagnosed as a chronic undifferentiated schizophrenic with acute exacerbation. His treating psychiatrist prescribed a high dosage of anti-psychotic medication. Greystone’s doctors agreed that he presented a danger to himself and others and thus, despite the medication’s beneficial effects, required continued hospitalization on a closed ward until he was stabilized on it. On August 21, 1984, S. escaped from Greystone using a spoon he had fashioned into a key that could open a security lock. He was quickly apprehended, returned to Greystone, and ultimately stabilized on Prolixin.

A New York Domestic Violence Lawyer said that, on April 29, 1986, S. was discharged from Greystone and extradited to New York to face prosecution on the 1983 attempted assault and weapon charges. The discharge diagnosis reported that he remained a chronic undifferentiated schizophrenic but was in remission because of his hospitalization and treatment at Greystone, and was no longer hostile or violent. The doctor who discharged S. recommended that he receive aftercare at a local New York City mental health center upon release from custody.

Contact Information