Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this is an Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 7, 1980, convicting him of possession of burglar’s tools, attempted criminal trespass in the second degree and attempted petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A Kings County Criminal lawyer said that on March 8, 1980 the complainant was alone in her fifth floor apartment when she heard a knock at her door. She did not answer as she was undressed at the time and was not expecting any company. After hearing a noise, she approached the door and observed that someone was at her door and was trying to gain entry. She then called the police, heard children in the hall and heard whoever was at the door walk away. Upon patting down the codefendant, a loaded revolver was recovered and a search of the appellant yielded a key with which the arresting officer was able to unlock one of the locks on the complainant’s apartment door.

At trial, nine-year-old twin sisters identified the appellant and the codefendant as the two men who had been at the complainant’s door and both testified that appellant had asked if they knew a certain individual. One of the girls identified the appellant as the man who put the key in complainant’s door.

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 the defendant is charged with petit larceny, theft of services, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the third degree, obstructing governmental administration in the second degree and resisting arrest.

A Deponent is informed by a Police Officer, that, at the above time and place defendant did approach informant and ask informant if informant wanted a swipe. The deponent is further informed by informant observed the defendant deprive the New York City Transit Authority of a quantity of United States currency by wrongfully taking from two individuals a sum of United States currency that would otherwise have been paid to the New York City Transit Authority as lawful fares from said individuals, in exchange for which the defendant swiped a bent card through the subway turnstile for each of these individuals, thereby allowing the said individuals to enter the transit system beyond the turnstiles, and the defendant did not enter the transit system beyond the turnstiles.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the reponent is further informed by informant that, informant, as a New York City Police Officer, is the custodian of the above-mentioned transit system, and the defendant did not have permission or authority to authorize access to or use of the services of the New York City Transit Authority and that the defendant did not have permission or authority to sell said fares or to collect, accept or retain United States Currency from said individuals entering the New York City transit system.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the defendant is charged with petit larceny arising out of a “buy and bust” operation in which the undercover officer allegedly gave the defendant US currency and the defendant fled without providing the officer with the agreed upon crack cocaine. The defendant moves to dismiss the information for facial insufficiency.

A Kings County Criminal attorney said that the deponent is informed by an undercover officer known to him that, at the above time and place, the defendant did engage informant in a drug related conversation whereupon defendant agreed to sell informant a quantity of crack cocaine in exchange for a sum of U.S. currency. Deponent further states that informant gave defendant a sum of U.S. currency, whereupon defendant took informant’s currency and left. Defendant is further informed by informant that informant is the custodian of said U.S. currency and that defendant did not have permission or authority to take said sum.”

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that section 155.25 of the Penal Law states that “[a] person is guilty of petit larceny when he steals property.” Section 155.05[1] of the Penal Law provides that “[a] person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.”

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 this case, tried to the Court without a jury, involves the confluence of criminal law, domestic relations, and consumer credit. Defendant is charged with multiple counts of Attempted Identity Theft and Attempted Petit larceny, as well as one count of Attempted Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Third Degree, all class B misdemeanors, as to which she moved at the end of testimony for a trial order of dismissal.

A Kings County Criminal lawyer said that Defendant is charged with charged with six counts of Attempted Petit larceny; six counts of Attempted Identity Theft; and one count of Attempted Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Third Degree, all class B misdemeanors, for transactions between January 25, 2008, and June 9, 2009. After summations, Defendant moved for a trial order of dismissal contending, inter alia, that Defendant had no intent to defraud or to deprive the Complainant of property, and, thus, the People had not proven the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on or about 2000, Defendants began a romantic relationship, and in 2001, Defendant gave birth to the a daughter moved in with Defendant in her apartment on Greene Avenue in Queens. In 2006, Defendant, together with the child moved to a different address on the same block, and, in July 2006, the defendant wrote a check for $800, to be used for rent. He continued to pay approximately half of the rent on the apartment until early 2008.

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 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, this is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered September 16, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the first degree, aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI), operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, at around midnight on October 18 to 19, 2007, the defendant went to the Island Rock nightclub in Hempstead with his girlfriend, a friend of his girlfriend, and another individual. After drinking alcohol at the nightclub, the defendant and the other individual left and went to a nearby parking lot. The friend of the defendant’s girlfriend testified that the defendant did not appear intoxicated at that time. According to him, the defendant stated in the parking lot “I lost my shit,” presumably referring to drugs, and the defendant became upset. The defendant went into the trunk of his car and searched for something. The defendant then began arguing with his girlfriend. At approximately 3:15 A.M., several witnesses heard gunshots, but no one reported having seen the defendant fire a gun. The defendant then angrily ordered said friend to leave with his girlfriend, which he did, driving the defendant’s girlfriend home. The defendant and the other individual then entered the defendant’s vehicle, with the defendant driving. When police officers arrived at the parking lot only minutes later, at about 3:20 A.M., the defendant had left, and the officers recovered several 9-millimeter shell casings in the parking lot.

A Queens Criminal Lawyer said that, thereafter, at approximately 3:30 A.M., the defendant’s vehicle was seen traveling west in the eastbound lanes of the Southern State Parkway at a speed of 70 to 75 miles per hour. According to numerous witnesses, the defendant’s vehicle traveled in the wrong direction from about exit 19 to exit 13, a distance of approximately five miles. A witness observed the defendant driving directly at him while changing lanes. That witness had to immediately pull his vehicle onto the shoulder to avoid a collision. This witness saw that the defendant continued driving the wrong way, and the witness observed the other vehicles on the parkway “split apart” in order to get away from the defendant. The witness testified that the defendant “was steadily going, not braking, nothing. He was just going. He was speeding.”

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, on April 17, 1970, in compliance with a subpoena, the defendant appeared before the October, 1969 Holdover Nassau County Grand Jury. After being duly sworn, he refused to answer questions put to him by that body, and even after immunity was conferred upon him by the Grand Jury, persisted in his refusal to answer lawful and proper interrogatories. Thereafter, on May 15, 1970, the defendant appeared before the then County Judge (now Justice of the Supreme Court) of Nassau County. The Judge directed him to return to the Grand Jury and answer questions put to him, but the defendant indicated that he would not obey this directive of the Court.

Consequently, in an order dated May 19, 1970, the Judge adjudged that the defendant had committed a criminal contempt under Judiciary Law § 750 in the immediate view and presence of the Court for his ‘contumacious and unlawful refusal, after being sworn, as a witness, to answer any legal and proper interrogatories, and for his wilful disobedience to the lawful mandate of this Court.’ The defendant was then sentenced to thirty days in the Nassau County Jail.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, subsequently, on May 22, 1970, the defendant was indicated on two counts of criminal contempt under Penal Law § 215.50. The first count, based upon Penal Law § 215.50(4) alleged that the defendant ‘did contumaciously and unlawfully refuse to answer legal and proper questions and interrogatories directed and asked of him’ when he appeared before the Grand Jury on April 17, 1970. The second count, based upon Penal Law § 215.50(1) alleged that the defendant ‘did contumaciously and insolently conduct himself so as to: interrupt the proceedings of; and impair the respect due the authority of the said Judge and the County Court of Nassau County sitting in official session, and in its immediate view, by refusing to answer legal and proper interrogatories and questions before the aforesaid Grand Jury.’

Contact Information