People v. A.
2019 NY Slip Op 00894
Feb. 6, 2019
People v. A.
2019 NY Slip Op 00894
Feb. 6, 2019
The defendant is charged with Assault, Harassment; Criminal Possession of a Weapon and Unlawful Possession of an Air Pistol. The charges arise out of an incident that allegedly occurred inside an apartment. At that time, the People allege that the defendant grabbed the woman by her arm, pushed her against a wall and choked her, causing substantial pain to her arm and neck and a bruise to her arm. Thereafter, a police officer allegedly observed that the defendant possessed one black handgun and one air pistol inside of his bedroom closet. The defendant allegedly stated, in sum and substance that the cops found a gun in the closet for protection. The gun was never loaded and was never fired.
The defendant moves to dismiss the weapons charge and the Administrative Code charge as facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied. He also moves for suppression and preclusion of evidence. For the reasons that follow, the County Court holds that neither Penal Law (PL) nor Administrative Code (AC) violates the Second Amendment and neither is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant.
A man is charged with attempted assault in the third degree, menacing in the third degree and harassment in the second degree.
The man then moved to dismiss the underlying action on the grounds that the domestic incident report was insufficient to convert the criminal complaint into misdemeanor information.
In this case, appellant filed an appeal, in six related family offense proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, from (1) three orders of protection of the Family Court, and entered in Nassau County, which, after a hearing, upon finding that she had committed certain family offenses, inter alia, directed her to stay away from the respondents for a period of two years, and (2) three orders of dismissal of the same court, which, after a hearing, dismissed her petitions.
A Nassau County Order of protection Attorney said that in March 2009, respondent and her sons filed three separate family offense petitions seeking the entry of orders of protection in favor of them and against the appellant, respondent’s mother, and her sons’ grandmother. The alleged family offenses included, inter alia, assault, harassment, and menacing. In their respective petitions, the respondents described how they were related to the appellant and asserted that the parties all resided together in a home. The petitions detailed certain incidents which allegedly occurred on the island of Anguilla. According to the respondents, the appellant pushed the respondent to the floor twice, causing her to hurt her back and hit her head. The appellant allegedly was screaming, yelling, and cursing at Annette during the assault. In addition, the appellant allegedly used a glass bowl to strike the son on the head, causing injuries. Further, the appellant allegedly chased the other son with a meat cleaver and threw an ashtray at him, which hit him in the back.
On 7 July 2010, when the petitioner’s father had his mother pinned against the kitchen wall, the petitioner was allegedly assaulted by his father after he attempted to separate his father from his mother. According to the petitioner, he was stabbed with a knife by his father and was hospitalized thereafter. At approximately 3:00 a.m. on that day, while the petitioner was in the hospital for the stab wound to his chest, he was arrested by law enforcement from the County of Nassau (herein “County”) and the Village of Malverine (herein “the Village”) on charges of Second Degree Assault. At the Hospital, the petitioner provided statements to law enforcement regarding the incident that occurred earlier that night. Later the same day, the petitioner was arraigned on the Second Degree Assault charge and released on his own recognizance. On 6 December 2010, after appearing at four criminal court appearances, the criminal action was terminated in favor of the petitioner.
On 22 February 2011, the petitioner timely served a Notice of Claim for malicious prosecution upon the respondents, the County and the Village. Pursuant to the rules, the ninety day time period in which to file a Notice of Claim for malicious prosecution began to run on the date the criminal charges were dismissed in the petitioner’s favor. However, the petitioner’s time to file a Notice of Claim for false arrest and false imprisonment expired on 5 October 2010, as the applicable time period for said claims began to run on the date the petitioner was released from custody. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to file a late Notice of Claim on 24 February 2011, approximately four months after the ninety day time period expired for false arrest and false imprisonment. The petitioner, in an Order to Show Cause, sought for an order pursuant to General Municipal Law granting him leave to serve a late Notice of Claim, nunc pro tunc, against the respondents, the County and the Village.
This proceeding under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Act presents a problem of statutory construction. The statute to be construed is the Family Court Act (Laws 1962, Chapter 686).A Nassau Assault Lawyer said that, petitioner was, on December 11, 1962, indicted by the Grand Jury for the crime of assault in the first degree in that defendant with intent to kill, assaulted his wife, by stabbing her with a knife, the same being a deadly weapon.’ The indictment was handed up to the Nassau County Supreme Court, which, upon motion of the District Attorney, transferred the case to the County Court of Nassau County for trial. The defendant was arraigned on December 13, 1962, pleaded not guilty and was remanded pending trial.
A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, the relief now sought is in the nature of both mandamus and prohibition. Petitioner seeks to compel the County Court to transfer the proceeding to the Family Court, and seeks to prohibit the People of the State of New York, the District Attorney of Nassau County and the County Court from prosecuting him in the County Court.
The defendant has been charged with assault in the third degree, harassment in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and unlawful possession of an air pistol.
The defendant has moved to dismiss the weapons charge and the administrative code charge as facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied. He is also moving to suppress and preclude evidence.
The defendant was arrested and subsequently arraigned on a charge of assault in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 120.00 (1). The People moved in line for a ruling allowing them to call an expert witness on domestic violence to testify on their direct case regarding the “battered woman syndrome” (hereinafter referred to as BWS). The complainant and the defendant dated periodically for a period of time encompassing the past 13 years. The instant charge stems from August 25, 2003, when the defendant is alleged to have picked up the complainant, thrown her over a couch, pushed her to the ground, and stomped on her groin, thereby causing her to allegedly suffer bruised ribs and a fractured coccyx. In support of their application, a Lawyer said that, the People detail the complainant’s allegations of physical and psychological abuse by the defendant over a prolonged period of time. Included are a litany of alleged violent acts directed at her by the defendant, from 1991 to 2003. The alleged violence included threatening to kill the complainant on numerous occasions, repeatedly beating her, urinating on her, various acts of forcible sex abuse, and constant berating of her. Although these acts occurred over a period of 13 years, except for brief sporadic periods of separateness, the complainant did not leave the defendant nor immediately seek protection from the police. All of the prior alleged violent acts were also the subject of the People’s Molineux application, which was separately decided.
A Nassau Sex Crime Lawyer said that, the charges contained in the criminal complaint before this court allegedly occurred on August 25, 2003. The complainant did not report the alleged crime to the police on August 25, 2003. On October 19, 2003, after other alleged incidents, the complainant reported this charge to the police along with four additional charges. Thereafter, the defendant was arrested for the above-listed crimes.