Articles Posted in Suffolk County

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said an 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 Murder 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 according to the records, the 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.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court has read the grand jury minutes and finds that the evidence adduced before the grand jury was legally sufficient and that there was reasonable cause to believe that he committed the crimes charged in each count.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said our sources show that, by stipulation, both cases were tried together, with separate judgments to be entered in each. In the first titled information, the offenders were charged with (a) criminally buying and receiving stolen property, consisting of 4 cases of handkerchiefs valued at $68.40; (b) criminally concealing and withholding the said property; and (c) petit larceny involving those handkerchiefs. In the second titled information, the offenders were charged with petit larceny, in that they stole 20 cases of handkerchiefs from their employer, valued at not more than $100.00.

At the trial, the People, called the fourth offender as their witness. After he was warned by the Court of his Constitutional rights, and with his attorney standing by his side, he testified that he and another man was employed as shipping clerks by Handkerchief Company; that the other offender, a truck man employed by Trucking Company, who had been calling at their employer’s place of business to pick up packages, approached him, and in the presence of the other employee propositioned him to enter into a ‘handkerchief deal’ with him, suggesting that a person will get for him cartons of handkerchiefs (which presumably stolen from his employer) and that he would pay him $20.00 per carton for them. They all agreed to join him in this ‘deal’, with the $20.00 per carton to be divided between them.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the court held that while they are accomplices of each other in the petit larceny case, neither is an accomplice of the other offenders in the receiving and concealing case, under Section 1308-a of the Penal Law, which provides in substance that the thief is not an accomplice of the person charged with receiving or concealing. Hence, both confession, with respect to and insofar as they may implicate the others, if legally sufficient and credible, do not require corroboration. With respect to the effect of their confessions on the charge against the truck man, the situation is different and will be discussed separately.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant was initially charged with two counts of Unlawful Receipt of Fare for Providing Access to Transit Authority Facilities, a violation, one count of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree, one count of Criminal Tampering in the Second Degree, two counts of Petit larceny, two counts of Theft of Services, thirteen counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Third Degree, and two counts of Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree, all Class A misdemeanors.

By motion, Defendant seeks the dismissal of all charges contained in the Criminal Court Complaint pursuant to CPL Sec. 100.40 and 170.35, asserting that the People’s initial complaint was facially insufficient. In response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, the People filed their Affirmation in Opposition dated September 13, 2005, as well as a Superceding Complaint, signed and dated September 12, 2005, which reiterated all of the charges stated above.

A New York Criminal lawyer said that in both initial Criminal Court Complaint, as well as the Superceding Complaint the People assert that on May 18, 2005, at about 6:45 PM, a Police Officer observed the Defendant at the Subway station located at Jay Street and Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY. The officer allegedly watched the Defendant pick up a discarded card and “jam” the card vending machine by “placing the said card in the currency slot of the vending machine causing the machine to no longer accept United States currency.”

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant has been charged with two counts of Murder in the Second Degree and one count of Tampering with Evidence. On January 21, 1997, the defendant was arraigned upon the indictment and pled not guilty, and a bail application was denied. The defendant was remanded with no bail. The defendant filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Appellate Division, Second Department, to fix bail upon the indictment. On February 7, 1997, the Appellate Division, Second Department, sustained the writ ” to the extent of fixing bail on Nassau County in the sum of $750,000, which may be posted in the form of an insurance company bail bond in that sum or by depositing the same sum as a cash bail alternative, on the condition that the defendant surrender his passport to the Clerk of the County Court, Nassau County, contemporaneously with the filing of the bond or the deposit of the cash bail alternative, and the writ is otherwise dismissed”.

On February 11, 1997, the People served an order to show cause upon the defendant to show cause why an order should not be made “1. Ordering that a sufficiency hearing be held pursuant to section 520.30 of the Criminal Procedure Law, in the event of a bail bond, before a bail bond is signed by the court or, in the event of cash bail, before cash bail is accepted for the defendant; 2. Ordering that the defendant, VINCENZO PULLARA, remain in the custody of the Sheriff of Nassau County until this court issues an order either approving or disapproving the bail.”

A New York Criminal Lawyer said in support of the order to show cause, the People affirm that “the defendant’s close association with members of organized crime provides reasonable cause to believe that any money posted as cash bail or any money or property posted as collateral for a bail bond will be the fruits of criminal or unlawful conduct or not rightfully in possession of the person posting it”. The People have provided a list of instances where the defendant was observed by the FBI in the company of known members of organized crime.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff and defendant were married in 1988 and have two children together. In January 1998, defendant commenced an action, assigned index number 98-732. for a judgment of divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. In July 1998, a misdemeanor complaint charging harassment was filed against plaintiff. The harassment charge arose out of an alleged incident between the parties at the former marital home. In November 1999, the Suffolk County District Court issued an order of protection directing that plaintiff stay away from defendant, and that he refrain from assaulting, harassing or any committing other criminal offense against defendant. That same month, the District Court granted plaintiff an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal on the misdemeanor complaint.

Sub sequently, in February 2000, plaintiff was arrested for violating the order of protection. An indictment was handed up by the Grand Jury charging plaintiff with two counts of criminal contempt in the first degree. One count of the indictment alleged that plaintiff violated the order of protection by making repeated telephone calls to defendant with the intent of harassing, annoying, threatening or alarming her. The second count alleged that plaintiff, with the intent of placing defendant in reasonable fear of death or serious physical injury, told defendant that he had put out a hit on her. Following a bench trial, the Suffolk County Court rendered a verdict acquitting plaintiff of both charges on the grounds that defendant’s trial testimony regarding the alleged death threat was not credible, and that the People failed to show that the phone calls at issue were made without legitimate purpose of communication. Thereafter, plaintiff brought the instant action to recover damages for malicious prosecution.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant now moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that plaintiff cannot overcome a presumption of probable cause created by the Grand Jury’s indictment. Defendant so asserts that there is no evidence in the record of actual malice. Defendant’s submissions in support of the motion include copies of the pleadings, a transcript of plaintiff’s deposition testimony, various documents related to the parties’ divorce action, and an affidavit by defendant. Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that issues of fact exist as to whether the indictment against him for criminal contempt was the result of perjurious testimony by defendant.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant, a cook at the Nassau County Jail, has been indicted for allegedly selling liquor and marijuana, and agreeing to sell heroin to an inmate at the jail. The indictment contains 14 counts charging the defendant with Bribe Receiving, Receiving a Reward for Official Misconduct, Official Misconduct, Promoting Prison Contraband in the First and Second Degree, Criminally Selling a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, and Criminal Possession of a Dangerous Drug in the Fourth Degree.aa

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this indictment was the result of an undercover investigation into the activities of the officers and employees of the County Jail. That investigation also caused the grand jury to hand up 24 additional indictments charging other prison employees with criminal transactions of a similar nature. Prior to the trial in this case one of these indictments was disposed of by plea. The remaining indictments have not yet gone to trial.

A Nassau County Criminal Lawyer said during the course of the trial, the defendant has made an oral application for an order directing the People to furnish him with a copy of all of the testimony given by the People’s witness (hereafter Peo-Wit), to the grand jury which indicted the defendant. Since Peo-Wit is presently testifying for the People upon this trial the defendant urges that the rule established by the Court of Appeals in the case of People v. Rosario, requires that all of his testimony before the grand jury should now be made available for purposes of impeachment on cross-examination.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the records reflect that the accused allegedly committed the criminal acts charged, and a warrant for his arrest was issued. He was incarcerated in a State Prison, in a different jurisdiction, as a probation violator, he having been previously convicted of burglary and given a suspended sentence. A detainer warrant was filed by the County District Attorney with the authorities at the State Prison, but no effort was made to obtain his presence in New York. Five years later, an indictment alleging two counts of forgery in the second degree and one count of petit larceny, was handed down by the County Grand Jury. Some time, the County Police Department was notified by the authorities that he would be released the following month. Later, the accused, after first refusing to do so, waived extradition and was returned to New York.

A New York Burglary Lawyer said he moved under sections 667 and 668 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the County Court to dismiss the indictment. The motion was granted under section 668 in an opinion, but on appeal the Appellate Division, Second Department unanimously reversed the County Court. He appeals from an order of the Appellate Division reversing an order of the County Court dismissing a criminal action for lack of prosecution.

The issue presented is whether he has been denied due process in the delayed prosecution of the charges against him for forgery in the second degree and petit larceny. The issue is distinguishable from the right to a speedy indictment after initiation of prosecution and to a speedy trial after indictment.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said PP, about a month old, was kidnapped on the rear patio of his home in Westbury, Nassau County shortly before 3:00 P. M. on 4 July 1956. The mother found a handwritten note, reading:

‘Attention.

‘I’m sorry this had to happen, but I am in bad need of money, & couldn’t get it in any other way.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, in our opinion, the testimony of the assistant district attorney who interrogated defendant at the station house after his arrest, presenting the full account of his conversation with defendant, was properly received in evidence and is not analogous to those cases in which a prosecutor in summation makes himself an unsworn witness for the People and places his own veracity and position in the balance against the defendants. We have examined the other contentions made by defendant and find them to be without merit.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree, sodomy in the first degree, and two counts of assault in the second degree. These crimes were alleged to have been committed between 6:10 P.M. and 6:30 P.M. on the evening of April 26, 1967, when defendant supposedly accosted the victim in a church in Merrick, Long Island. Defendant attempted to prove that it was physically impossible for him to have been in the church at the time in question because he was at an animal home between 6:00 P.M. and 6:15 P.M. and could not have traveled the four miles to the church, committed the crimes and fled, all within a time period of approximately 15 minutes. At least three disinterested witnesses testified that they had observed defendant at the animal home between 6:00 P.M. and 6:10 P.M.

The issue in this case is whether defendant is guilty of rape.

Contact Information