Articles Posted in Domestic Violence

Published on:

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that, this is a motion by the defendant, to dismiss the indictment for want of prosecution, pursuant to Section 668 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The record indicates that the defendant was indicted in Nassau County, New York, on the 17th day of February, 1959 for the crimes of Robbery, in the First Degree; Grand Larceny, First Degree (two (2) counts); Grand Larceny, in the Second Degree; and Assault, in the Second Degree; all of which acts were allegedly committed by the defendant in concert with three (3) others on or about December 31st, 1958.

A Nassau Criminal Lawyer said that, the defendant’s affidavit in support of this motion indicates that, on or about January 2nd, 1959, he was arrested in Pittsboro, North Carolina, on a charge of Robbery. In the Spring of 1959, the defendant, convicted of Robbery in North Carolina, after which a prison term of not more than twelve (12) years, but not less than nine (9) years was imposed upon him. The defendant, remained in Caledonia Prison Farm, Halifax, North Carolina, until extradited to Nassau County in the latter part of March, 1965 and he was arraigned upon the instant indictment on April 1st, 1965. Nassau County authorities lodged a detainer warrant for the arrest of the defendant on the instant charges at the Caledonia Prison Farm in January, 1959, but did not attempt to return Singleton for trial until March, 1965-a period of more than six (6) years. The defendant alleges that during his incarceration in North Carolina, he was at all times able and willing to stand trial and that he did not waive his right to a speedy trial by any action on his part. Moreover, the defendant alleges that he made efforts to be returned to this State for trial. For example, he claims that in either 1962 or 1963, he wrote to former Governor Sanford of North Carolina asking to be returned to New York State for trial. Thereafter, Governor Sanford replied that North Carolina would be willing to release the defendant because of his good prison record, but added that such a step could not be taken without a formal request from the State of New York. Subsequently, the defendant wrote to the Governor of New York State asking to be returned to Nassau County for trial, and he was thereafter informed by the Governor’s Office that the request had been forwarded to the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office.

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a proceeding wherein the defendant is charged with Assault in the Third Degree (PL § 120.00[1]), Harassment in the Second Degree (PL § 240.26[1]), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (PL § 265.01[1]) and Unlawful Possession of an Air Pistol (AC § 10-131[b]).

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that these charges arise out of an incident that allegedly occurred at approximately 2:00 pm on 26 June 2010, inside an apartment on Walton Avenue in the Bronx. At that time, the People allege, defendant grabbed JP 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.

Continue reading

Published on:

Two cases of similar nature which involved children were brought before the court for resolution.

The first case is a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 wherein the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County dated 27 May 2010, which, after a hearing, inter alia, granted the father’s petition for sole custody of the child and denied her cross petition for sole custody of the child.

Continue reading

Published on:

The CSS filed the instant proceeding on 9 April 1991 alleging that respondent LM sexually abused his sons, MM and DM, ages 10 and 8, respectively, by fondling their genitals and buttocks in violation of Penal Law, § 130.65. CSS also alleges that the children are psychologically and emotionally impaired as a result of the pattern of domestic violence witnessed in the parental household. The petitioner additionally asserts a claim of educational neglect claiming that the children are excessively absent and do not attend school regularly.

The court finds that the allegations of sexual abuse have not been proven by the quantum of proof necessary under Article 10. In order to sustain a finding of sexual abuse, this court must make a threshold finding that the father’s acts were done for the purpose of sexual

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a proceeding wherein the court is called upon to determine whether the attorney for the defendant’s application to be relieved as attorney of record should be granted, if the defendant’s applications brought pro se while still represented by counsel are properly before the court, whether or not the defendant is entitled to a 30 day stay of all proceedings in the event counsel is relieved pursuant to CPLR 321(c), whether or not the defendant is entitled to a second court appointed counsel pursuant to Judiciary Law section 35(8)(b) on the issues of custody, visitation and an order of protection, whether or not the defendant should have the benefit of a court assigned interpreter and the sua sponte sealing of photographs of the child’s genitalia and buttocks which were annexed exhibits to defendant’s order to show cause.

GG, an attorney of her own choosing, presently represents the defendant. Defendant’s counsel moved by order to show caused dated 5 November 2010, to be relieved. GG seeks to be relieved as the attorney of record based upon an irretrievable breakdown in the attorney client relationship. The defendant submits in her most recent application disparaging statements about GG and his representation of her. In open court, on 17 November 2010, defendant stated she wished to discharge GG and asked for the appointment of counsel pursuant to Judiciary Law section 35(8)(b).

Continue reading

Published on:

This is a contested matrimonial action wherein the plaintiff, the husband, moves by order to show cause dated 6 January 2010 for the following relief: an order directing the return of the parties’ two children, A, age 7 and M, age 4, to New York State; an order awarding the husband temporary custody of the subject children; and, an order awarding the defendant, the wife, reasonable visitation with the minor children within the State of New York.

On the other hand, the wife opposes the husband’s application and cross moves by order to show cause dated 9 April 2010 for the following relief: an order dismissing the husband’s application on the basis that New York is not the home state pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and for permission for the wife to commence a custody proceeding in California; and, an order directing the husband to pay all costs associated with Court appearances, including but not limited to transportation costs including airfare, car rentals, hotel costs, and daycare.

Continue reading

Published on:

In January 2007, defendant JF was charged by misdemeanor information filed in New York City Criminal Court, Kings County, with multiple counts of aggravated harassment in the second degree after he contacted his former paramour by telephone 62 times in one evening and repeatedly threatened her with physical harm. JF and the complainant had been involved in multiple prior Family Court cases regarding disputes about their two children. After his arraignment in New York City Criminal Court, the case was transferred to the IDV Part in Kings County Supreme Court where a nonjury trial was conducted. He was convicted of three counts of attempted aggravated harassment in the second degree and sentenced to concurrent terms of one year’s probation. He was also directed to participate in a variety of domestic violence accountability and other programs. He raised no objection in the trial court to the transfer of his case.

In his appeal to the Appellate Division, Second Department, however, he argued that the IDV Part-an arm of Supreme Court-lacked the authority to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over his misdemeanor case because it was prosecuted by information rather than an indictment or superior court information issued after waiver of indictment. Defendant also contended that the Chief Judge and Chief Administrative Judge exceeded the scope of their authority when they issued the IDV directives. In addition, he sought reversal based on an asserted evidentiary error. The Second Department unanimously rejected defendant’s arguments and affirmed his conviction. A Justice of that court granted defendant leave to appeal.

Continue reading

Published on:

Petitioner is charged with a criminal family offense (a misdemeanor and a violation) involving his two preteen sons. At the arraignment, the judge issued a temporary stay away order of protection (TOP), pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law §530.12. The TOP had an expiration date. There is no indication in the record that either the Judge directed a TOP hearing or that one was requested by petitioner or his counsel at that time.

A Kings County Family lawyer said that on that return date, petitioner and his counsel appeared and while, apparently, certain conversations were held off-the-record, including the presentment of a tape recording of the event to the Assistant District Attorney the record is devoid of any request by petitioner’s counsel for a TOP hearing before the assigned judge. In fact, the transcript reveals that upon the presentment of an amended order of protection by the Assistant District Attorney, an opportunity to spread the matter on the record was offered to petitioner’s counsel but, aside from a general objection, the record fails to disclose that a request for a TOP hearing was formally made.

Continue reading

Published on:

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, which, after a hearing, granted the father’s petition for sole custody of the subject child.

The court’s paramount concern in any custody dispute is to determine, under the totality of the circumstances, what is in the best interests of the child. “Factors to be considered in determining the child’s best interests include the quality of the home environment and the parental guidance the custodial parent provides for the child, the ability of each parent to provide for the child’s emotional and intellectual development, the financial status and ability of each parent to provide for the child, the relative fitness of the respective parents, and the effect an award of custody to one parent might have on the child’s relationship with the other parent”.

Continue reading

Published on:

The defendant is charged in a fifteen count indictment with the crimes of Criminal Contempt in the First Degree (3 counts), Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (2 counts), Harassment in the Second Degree (2 counts), Assault in the Third Degree (2 counts), Menacing in the Second Degree, Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree (2 counts), Assault in the Second Degree, and Aggravated Criminal Contempt (2 counts).

A Kings County Criminal lawyer said that the defendant moves for an inspection of the Grand Jury minutes and for a dismissal of the indictment or a reduction of the charges on the ground of legal insufficiency of the evidence adduced before the Grand Jury. The defendant’s motion to inspect the Grand Jury minutes is granted. The motion to dismiss the indictment is granted with respect to one count of Criminal Contempt in the First Degree, one count of Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree, and two counts of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree but denied with respect to the other eleven counts.

Continue reading

Contact Information