Articles Posted in Nassau

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 asks if a vial of blood taken from a defendant, in the course of treatment and diagnosis following an automobile accident, be later obtained and tested by the People and the results used in prosecuting that defendant for driving while intoxicated and other charges? For the reasons set forth below, both the blood and the blood test results are protected by the physician-patient privilege and are precluded from use at the trial in this case.

The defendant is charged with violating Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 (3) (driving while intoxicated), Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212 (reckless driving), Penal Law § 120.20 (reckless endangerment in the second degree) and Penal Law § 145.00 (3) (criminal mischief in the fourth degree).

The defendant moves for various forms of relief: 1. Dismissal of the charges of: (A) reckless driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1212); (B) criminal mischief in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 145.00 [3]); and (C) reckless endangerment in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.20) on the grounds that said charges are insufficient and defective, pursuant to CPL 170.30, 170.35, 100.15 and 100.40. 2. An order, pursuant to CPL 710.20, suppressing evidence of any chemical test of the defendant’s blood upon the grounds that the search warrant was based upon less than probable cause. 3. Preclusion of the evidence of any chemical test of the defendant’s blood upon the grounds that: (A) the search warrant abrogated the defendant’s rights pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 (3); (B) the defendant’s blood was taken in violation of the physician-patient privilege; (C) the blood test results are unreliable as a matter of law; and (D) the People cannot establish a chain of custody for the blood test results. 4. Preclusion of the data results of the powertrain control module obtained from the defendant’s automobile on the basis that said results are scientifically unreliable or, in the alternative, the defendant seeks a Frye hearing. 5. Suppression, pursuant to CPL 710.20 (3), of the defendant’s alleged statements or, in the alternative, a Huntley hearing. 6. A Sandoval hearing. 7. An order, pursuant to CPL 200.95, for a court-ordered bill of particulars and pursuant to CPL 240.40 for court-ordered discovery.

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, 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, plaintiff, a former employee of a department store, commenced this action for, inter alia, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, slander and breach of contract, after she was accused of falsifying business records and misappropriating large sums of the employer’s money under the guise of various customer discounts and refunds. The action was previously stayed pending the outcome of the related criminal proceeding, as a result of which plaintiff was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and falsifying business records in the first degree, and sentenced to 90 days in prison and 100 hours of community service, five years probation and a $96,000 fine.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said the plaintiff was employed by defendant department store flagship store’s fine jewelry department as a sales associate from September 1998 through January 2006, when her employment was terminated. Thereafter, defendants reported to the New York City Police Department (the “NYPD”) that plaintiff falsified records and misappropriated in excess of $50,000 of Saks’s funds. The New York County District Attorney (the “DA”) filed a criminal complaint against her and plaintiff was indicted by a Grand Jury on 316 felony counts for the crimes of grand larceny in the first and third degrees and falsifying business records in the first degree.

A Suffolk County Criminal Lawyer said that after the indictment, plaintiff commenced this action against defendants, alleging 13 causes of action and seeking more than $10 million in damages. Plaintiff alleges that defendants failed to pay her compensation from 2002 to 2006, refund $22,000 for certain returned merchandise and compensate her for unused vacation time, – all in breach of seven contracts attached to the complaint. Plaintiff also claims that defendants terminated her employment in order to avoid paying her compensation, including a fall 2005 bonus in the amount of approximately $100,000.

Contact Information