New York Criminal Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: April 24, 2012

Petitioners File a Late Notice of Claim with New York Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

It was a fateful day of April 18, 2007 when a mother, her companion, and a home health care worker were murdered by her own twenty-year-old son criminal who committed suicide after he accomplished the bloody murders that involved his own mother and companions. The petitioner is the victim’s seven-month-old son, brother of the murderer and sole heir who was not there when the murders happened in his family. The other petitioner is the father of the sole heir and who is now appointed as administrator for the estate of the decedent.

The petitioners made a motion for leave of court in May 2008 in order to file a late notice of claim charging infliction of emotional anguish, remiss in supervision, wrongful death, as well as gross neglect on the part of the police department. The city contradicted the said petition as it ascertains to all possible causes of action other than the claim with association to that of wrongful death.

Published on: April 23, 2012

New York Appellate Court Rules There is No Incident That Requires Wife’s Protection from the Court

by Stephen Bilkis

Domestic violence is much harder to accept because the perpetrator is a family member. There are many undocumented domestic violence cases because not only do victims get traumatized, they are also afraid of the outcome of the case, which usually means the breakdown of a family unit. This is a case between a married couple and a parole officer. The husband is forbidden to contact his wife without the parole officer’s permission. The special condition stated by the Supreme Court was to permit the husband to see his wife, even during out-of-curfew hours, as long as the wife wanted to see him, as well.

These provisions were agreed upon by the husband. He agreed to follow the curfew policy set by the parole officer. However, the husband appealed to remove the curfew clause and be with his wife. Although this was not a violation of his rights, he was still denied to visit his wife during non-curfew hours. But if his wife wanted to do so, he could visit her. In this case, is very important to consider the desire of the wife to see his husband. The court also convicted the husband of rape, domestic violence and assault.

Published on: April 21, 2012

Court Decides Neglect Case Filed Against Father

by Stephen Bilkis

On January 19, 2005 a King’s County man filed a petition with the Kings County Family Court seeking custody of the two children that he believes to be his that were born to a woman with whom he has lived for a number of years including the years that she was pregnant and the children. The father requested sole custody of the children because he claimed that since he has not been living with the children and their mother, they have shown up with burns and other injuries from accidents with their mother. Due to the allegations that the children are in harm, Judge Emily Olshansky of Family Court Kings County ordered an emergency investigation into the matters at the home.

The mother in this case filed a family offense petition on the very same day in Kings County Family Court seeking an order of protection against the father for her and the children. Her petition states that the father of the children has hit her and elbowed her in the face in front of the children causing them to be considered neglected by him. She claims that he uses drugs and is armed or has access to a knife and guns. The mother also seeks sole custody of these children.

Published on: April 20, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discusses Sex Offender Level Assessment

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 19, 2010, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York heard the case of the People v. James D. C, Defendant-Appellant regarding a sex crime. The defendant wanted an order that determined him to be a Level 3 risk appealed. He says that the court made a mistake when it in set forth its findings, which is required by law. It is true that the court failed to do this, but the Court believes that the record is sufficient for it to make a decision. The court rejected the notion that the court made a mistake when it assessed 20 points against the defendant for his relationship with the victims and 25 points for using drugs or alcohol.

The defendant was employed as a bus driver of mentally disabled women at the time of the sex crimes. He said that he chose these women because he thought that they would not be capable of reporting the sex crime. Twenty points were assessed for this since the defendant had a professional relationship with them. Furthermore, the defendant began drinking alcohol when he was 11 years old and using additional drugs over the years, such as marijuana, LSD, and angel dust. He admitted that he was addicted to cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol and this evidence justified the assessment of 25 points for that risk factor.

Published on: April 19, 2012

The Court Decides if a Bus Driver Has an Avocational Relationship with His Victims

by Stephen Bilkis

In a case of the People of the State of New York, Respondent v. James D. C, Defendant-Appellant, the Supreme Court decided a sex crime case on November 19, 2010. The issue centered around the order determining that the defendant is a Level 3 risk according to the Sex Offender Registration Act. In this case, the order was affirmed without costs.

Published on: April 18, 2012

New York Court of Appeals Rules on Juvenile Rape Case

by Stephen Bilkis

This case involves a juvenile delinquency hearing in which the Respondent was found to have committed forcible oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse with a 14 year-old female. After lubricating his penis with beer, he forced it into the victim’s anus. If an adult committed this sex crime, it would be considered to be two Class B felonies of rape and sodomy in the first degree. When the original case was heard, the Respondent was only charged with the Class E felonies of rape and sodomy in the third degree. The Court intended to examine the statutory framework in this area to determine the Respondent’s legal culpability and to consider if a lesser included offense was authorized and warranted.

The law determines that lack of consent is an element in a sex offence, and that the 14 year-old victim of this crime did not have the capacity to consent because of her age. In this sex crime case, age was the one circumstance excluded from the two counts charged in the petition. The Respondent cannot be found guilty unless another factor exists, such as State confinement, physical helplessness, mental incapacity, or other factor. There can also be lack of consent in date rape situations when a victim says, “No.” The problem in this case was that the petition did not charge date rape for either of the counts and there are no other “incapable of consent” provisions that applied in this case. Just because these were not charged does not give the Court the right to violate due process notice requirements or include the offences after the fact.

Published on: April 17, 2012

Defendant Appeals His Sex Crime Conviction in New York Appellate Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The case of The People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Richard P. K, Appellant, was decided on December 9, 2010 by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Third Department. On July 27, 2009, the County Court of Delaware County convicted the defendant of sex crimes including two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree. The defendant was also convicted of two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree and two counts of forcible touching. Additionally, he was charged with two counts of child endangerment.

The defendant and his roommate, a Level 3 sex crime offender, went to a park to swim with an 11 year-old boy. After consuming beer and giving the boy cigars, the defendant forcibly touched the boy on his genitals. After the boy ran home and told his mother, the defendant was arrested and charged with two counts of sexual abuse in the first and second degree and two counts of forcible touching and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to consecutive 6-1/2 year prison terms on his convictions for the sex crimes. He was also sentenced to six one-year terms on the remaining six crimes plus 5 years of post-release supervision.

Published on: April 16, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discusses Merger Doctrine in Sex Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court heard the case of the People, Respondent, v. Demetrio G, Appellant in a sex crime, kidnapping, and assault case. The event took place on November 28, 1987. The indictment also charged the defendant in another similar case that allegedly occurred on February 13, 1988 involving another woman. The later counts were dismissed.

The complainant’s testimony was the only evidence in the sex crime and other crimes allegedly committed on November 28, 1987. The incident was not reported to police until February 14, 1988 when the police came to interview her in connection with an attack on the other woman. She said that on November 28, 1987, she took her three oldest children to her neighbor’s apartment with the intent of going to the hospital to fill a prescription. At that time, the defendant was present in the neighbor’s apartment and volunteered to go downstairs to call a cab for her. The defendant got into the cab with the woman and allegedly told the driver to keep driving. He told the compliant that she was going to pay for what everyone had done to him. He then allegedly began beating her in the face with his fists and struck her head with a gun. He also stated that he would kill her.

Published on: April 14, 2012

New York Appellate Court Decides if Testimony of Prior Crimes is Admissible in Sex Crime Case

by Stephen Bilkis

On February 15, 1990 the case of the People of the State of New York, Respondent v. Nicky S, Defendant-Appellant as heard in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department. This sex crime case brings up the question of whether testimony regarding an alleged similar crime may be introduced to show modus operandi and identity when the defendant’s identity is not revealed.

In the Consolazio Case, the complainant, Marilyn Pizzaro Consolazio testified about events that allegedly occurred in April, 1986 when she was staying at the Deauville Hotel in Manhattan. The defendant began talking to her and rode the elevator with her to the seventh floor where their rooms were. Consolazio testified that a few mornings later, when she was taking garbage to the seventh floor disposal area, the defendant came up behind her and pointed a gun at her head. He then pushed her door open and followed her into the room. When she asked him why he was doing this to someone he didn’t know, he said that she had “asked for it because [she] didn’t pay him no mind.”

Published on: April 13, 2012

New York Appellate Court Discusses Jurisdiction Related to an Order of Protection

by Stephen Bilkis

On Feb 7, 1997, a Rochester man appeared before the Supreme Court Appellate Division, Fourth Department to request that an order of protection against him that had been granted to his step daughter be revoked. The order had been granted by Family Court in that the step daughter testified that her stepfather had stalked her and that he had been convicted of raping her in 1985. At the time that he was convicted of raping her, she was only 11 years old. The mother divorced the stepfather that same year presumably because of these actions. The girl advised that he began stalking her in 1995.

The stepfather argued that since the girl was his step daughter and no actual relation to him that the divorce severed any ties that would give Family Court any venue over this case. He argued that the relationships defined in the law as domestic relationships does not apply to that of stepfather and step daughter.