Articles Posted in Bronx

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 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, 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.’

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant, by motion dated April 19, 2010, and filed April 21, 2010, moves pursuant to CPL §§ 330.30 and 370.10, to set aside a jury verdict convicting the defendant of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) in violation of § 1192.2 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The defendant argues that the jury verdict was tainted by juror misconduct on the grounds that one of the jurors who rendered the verdict was not qualified to serve pursuant to § 510 of the Judiciary Law. § 510 of the Judiciary Law reads as follows:

§ 510. Qualifications. In order to qualify as a juror a person must: 1. Be a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the county; 2. Be not less than eighteen years of age; 3. Not have been convicted of a felony; 4. Be able to understand and communicate in the English language.

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was arrested and charged with violating §§ 1192.2 and 1163d of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. Both offenses were alleged to have been committed on the 29th day of January, 2005. After extensive pre-trial proceedings, a trial was commenced before the JDC on February 7, 2007. On February 9, 2007, the court declared a mistrial. Thereafter, there was additional motion practice, including a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the defendant had been denied a speedy trial under § 30.30 of the CPL, as well as the ground that jeopardy had attached at the time of the mistrial. By decision dated August 2, 2007, the Judge denied the defendant’s motion. Thereafter, upon the Judge’s elevation to the Nassau County Court bench, the case was transferred to the JDC. Additional motion practice ensued and ultimately the matter was transferred to the undersigned for trial. The trial commenced on January 27, 2010 and concluded on February 2, 2010, on which date the jury returned a verdict of guilty on the charge of violating § 1192.2 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, and not guilty on the charge of violating § 1163d of Vehicle and Traffic Law. Upon the rendering of the jury’s verdict the defendant was continued released on bail and the court ordered a pre-sentence report. The matter was therefore adjourned to April 6, 2010 for sentencing and thereafter to May 11, 2010 for defendant to submit the instant motion.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defendant’s motion challenges the constitutionality of CPL 530.12 and 530.13, arguing that the failure of these statutes to provide for an adversarial evidentiary hearing at defendant’s request before a temporary order of protection is issued or continued deprives defendant and others similarly situated of due process guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and article I, § 6 of the New York Constitution.

When defendant was arraigned in this court on August 25, 1998, on a single count of aggravated harassment in the second degree, two separate nonfamily offense orders of protection were issued pursuant to CPL 530.13. Both were full stay-away orders protecting four named individuals. The matter was marked for conference and adjourned for two days, at which time the defendant requested a hearing to test the legality of the orders. When the matter was adjourned to this court, the People withdrew their prior consent and objected to holding the hearing, arguing that defendant did not have a right to an evidentiary hearing solely at his request. The matter was thereupon adjourned for submission of memoranda of law.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that before a determination can be made that a statute violates the Due Process Clause, the moving party must establish standing: does there exist a sufficient life, liberty or property interest affected by the statute or government action which would trigger due process protection? Orders of protection impact upon the right to use and enjoy a domicile and can impact upon relations with persons neither witnesses nor victims of the crimes alleged. Both CPL sections can impact on a license to carry, possess, repair or sell firearms, potentially having a significant impact on a defendant’s legitimate professional or business pursuits.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said this involves an appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County rendered May 1, 1984, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Defendant was indicted for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree for knowingly possessing and selling lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to an undercover narcotics agent. Following a trial, the jury found her guilty as charged.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the issue on this appeal is whether the evidence adduced at trial established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew the substance she sold was LSD.

Published on:

This case is before this Court from a refusal of the District Attorney to prosecute a case involving a dog that allegedly attacked a person. It is alleged that on April 16, 2008, the complainant was walking down a public sidewalk when a loose dog, later identified as belonging to the defendants, ran up to and bit the complainant on the hand, and, unprovoked, injured the plaintiff and damaged a box he was holding. It is further contended that the complainant then contacted the police and had to receive antibiotics for a period of one week as a result of the dog bite. Upon contacting the police and making a complaint, the Village of Westbury Attorney apparently advised the complainant to file a formal complaint with the District Attorney’s office, which the complainant did. Thereafter, the District Attorney’s office declined to prosecute and instead suggested that the Village handle the matter.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that the complainant gave a supporting deposition to the Village Prosecutor which was reduced to a summons on May 6, 2008. The defendants are also charged with violating Article III, Chapter 74, §74-8 of the Village of Westbury Code, having his dog running loose, which is a violation. This charge stems from an incident that allegedly took place a month prior to the first charge. On March 20, 2008, the defendants allegedly had their dog wandering loose, meaning that the dog was purportedly on public property without a leash or similar restraint.

A Bronx Criminal Lawyer said the question I this case is whether the Nassau County Village Justice Court have jurisdiction over a misdemeanor? The answer is no. This Court believes that the Legislature truly does not understand that there is a marked differentiation between Village Courts in Nassau County and elsewhere. The Legislature has obviously overlooked the constraints of Village Courts in Nassau County. If the Legislature wishes to give Nassau’s Village Courts jurisdiction over misdemeanors, it needs to enact legislation to that effect which must clarify questions involving the jurisdiction of District Courts and what facilities, training, staff, and provisions will be provided for the conduct of these cases including jury trials. Therefore, Agriculture & Markets Law §121 as applied to Nassau County Village Courts is unconstitutional.

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 June 19, 1989, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant was charged with three counts of rape in the first degree and four counts of sodomy in the first degree. These counts arose from seven different forced sexual acts allegedly perpetrated against the complainant in a car within a time period of approximately one hour and 15 minutes. The defendant, who testified at trial, admitted to performing one act of sexual intercourse and two acts of oral sex (sodomy) with the complainant, but he maintained that the acts were consensual. The jury acquitted the defendant of all three counts of rape and all but one of the sodomy counts.

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the issue in this case is whether the jury erred in acquitting the defendant.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, in May of this year, members of the Brooklyn Tactical Narcotics Teams arrested the defendants for street level narcotics sales to undercover police officers. In each case, both the arrest and the overt conduct constituting the crimes charged [PL §§ 220.39(1) and 220.16(1) ] occurred entirely within Kings County. “Pursuant to an agreement between the District Attorney of Kings County and the Special Narcotics Prosecutor for the City of New York”, these criminal actions were commenced by the filing of felony complaints in New York County Criminal Court. The People did not obtain transfer orders from the supreme court pursuant to Judiciary Law § 177-b(2).

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, all three defendants were arraigned in New York County, and their cases adjourned to Part N, New York County, for action by the special narcotics grand jury and/or possible disposition by way of waiver of indictment and the filing of a superior court information. When each defendant initially appeared in Part N the People had no grand jury action to report. Counsel orally moved before this court for dismissal of the felony complaints on the ground that the court lacked geographical jurisdiction as defined in CPL § 20.40. With the concurrence of all the parties, the court reserved decision and set a schedule for the filing of written motions and memoranda of law.

A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said the issue is whether article 5-B of the Judiciary Law, which established special narcotics parts of the Supreme Court, or any other provision of law, confers jurisdiction on this court over felony complaints alleging overt criminal conduct wholly occurring in another county.

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, this is a declaratory judgment action. Plaintiff is a “national cable television network dedicated to reporting on legal and judicial systems of the United States, the 50 states, and the District of Columbia.” Plaintiff seeks a judgment holding New York Civil Rights Law § 52 unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the US Constitution and/or article I, § 8 of the New York Constitution, as well as an order permanently enjoining the statute’s enforcement.

A New York Assault Lawyer said that, plaintiff now moves for partial summary judgment, submitting the affidavit of its executive vice-president and general counsel, copies of pleadings and other documentary evidence. The State of New York and State defendants’ cross-move for summary judgment dismissing the action. In support of their cross motion, and in opposition to plaintiff’s motion, State defendants submit the affidavit of Assistant Attorney General and other documentary evidence. Defendant also opposes plaintiff’s motion.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, since 1909, the public’s right to attend trials in New York has been guaranteed by statute. Enacted the same year, Civil Rights Law § 12 codifies the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution, protecting criminal defendants’ rights to a fair, public trial. In 1952, the New York Legislature enacted Civil Rights Law § 52, which provides, in pertinent part: “No person, firm, association or corporation shall televise, broadcast, take motion pictures or arrange for the televising, broadcasting, or taking of motion pictures within this state of proceedings, in which the testimony of witnesses by subpoena or other compulsory process is or may be taken, conducted by a court, commission, committee, administrative agency or other tribunal in this state.”

Contact Information