A topic of usual concern for clients involved in both Family Law Cases and Criminal Defense Cases is the issuance of an order of protection by the court.  The attorneys at Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP regularly appear in the Family Courts and Criminal Courts of Westchester, Orange, Rockland, Dutchess, Putnam, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and New York to defend clients against the issues that arise when an order of protection is issued.

An order of protection may be granted in a number of different cases pursuant to various criminal and civil statutes, including Criminal Procedural Law sections 530.12(1) and 530.13(1); Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 of the Family Court Act; and Section 240(3) of the Domestic Relations Law.  Generally, orders of protection fall under two categories, temporary and permanent.  A temporary order of protection is typically made during the pendency of the action.  A permanent order of protection is usually issued at the conclusion or disposition of the case.  Frequently, temporary orders of protection precede permanent orders of protection.  

New York Law prohibits the extension of an order of protection to a person(s) unrelated to the underlying criminal action.  See People v. Konieczny, 2004 WL 1263762 (N.Y. 2004).  The order of protection may cover the complainant and family or household, but not beyond.  People v. Petrusch, 306 A.D.2d 889.

Orders of protection may also be issued in instances where the person being “protected” by the order opposes the terms of the order of protection and does not want the defendant being barred from contacting him or her.  People v. Monacelli, 299 A.D.2d 916.  This particular event often occurs in cases involving spouses and families. 

In criminal cases, an order of protection may be part of the court’s order allowing for the defendant release from custody.  CPL Sections 530.12 (family offenses) and CPL 530.13 (non-family offenses).  At times, a court may issue an order of protection on its own, based upon “good cause shown”, when an accusatory instrument (complaint) is filed by the prosecution.  In such an instance, the defendant has a right to contest the issuance of the order of protection in those circumstances where a constitutionally protected right, such as being excluded from the defendant’s residence or being prohibited from contacting the defendant’s family, is restricted.

Also, a court can suspend or revoke a pistol permit and possession of firearms.  A defendant has a right to hearing on the issue of firearms.  It should be noted that a violation of an order of protection due to firearm possession is also a violation of federal criminal law.

By understanding these important aspect of the law as they pertain to orders of protection, the criminal, matrimonial and family law (child custody, child support, family offense) trial attorneys of Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP continue to successfully assist their many clients.

If you or someone you know needs the assistant of a criminal, family or matrimonial attorney, please contact Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP for a free consultation.  The firms trial attorneys regularly appear in the courts of Westchester, Bronx, Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess and Orange Counties in New York State.

Stephen Riebling successfully represented his client at trial in the City Court of White Plains, New York in defense to the misdemeanor crime of Menacing in the Third Degree.

In defending those criminal charges, criminal trial attorney Riebling focused on demonstrating that his client did not engage in any actions which were criminal under the law.  All New York crimes, including felonies and misdemeanors have specific elements which need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The crime of Menacing in the Third Degree states:

“A person is guilty of Menacing in the Third Degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.” (PL § 120.15.)

The single most important factor in defending his client in the White Plains, New York Court was the lack of any “physical menace.”  In order to satisfy the physical menace element of this crime, it must be alleged that the defendant committed a physical act which, in and of itself, placed another person in fear of imminent injury.Words or threats are not enough to satisfy the requirement.A defendant may not be convicted of Menacing without evidence of this important element.

At the time of trial, the case was successfully resolved in favor of Attorney Riebling’s client.

****

If you or someone you know has been arrested for a crime, misdemeanor or felony and needs a criminal defense lawyer in New York, please contact Stephen Riebling or any member of the firm for a free consultation. The firm’s criminal defense lawyers regularly appear in the courts of Westchester, Bronx, Rockland, Putman, Dutchess and Orange Counties.

When an individual suffers a personal injury as a result of the actions of an animal, most commonly those cases involving dog bites,

it is often believed that the injured person may not recover from the dog’s owner if the dog has never bitten anyone before. This misconception is often referred to as the “one free bite” rule. Under New York State law, there is no such rule. The standard is not whether or not the dog has bitten previously, what is required is that the dog, or any other animal, exhibits a “vicious propensity” that the owner knew or should have known.

The attorneys at Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP are personal injury lawyers in New York who utilize these important aspects of the law to maximize the recovery for their clients.

New York Courts have defined a vicious or dangerous propensity to mean a natural inclination or habitual tendency to act in a manner that might endanger the person or property of others, Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d 444, 775 NYS2d 205, 807 NE2d 254; Dickson v McCoy, 39 NY 400; Wheaton v Guthrie, 898 AD2d 809, 453 NYS2d 480; Lagoda v Dorr, 28 AD2d 208, 284 NYS 2d 130; Shuffian v Garfola, 9 AD2d 910, 195 NYS 2d 45; see Mirabella v Thiem, 306 NY 650, 116 NE2d 492, and Webster’s International Dictionary.

As previously mentioned:

 “a vicious propensity is not limited to a bite or other attack, but ‘includes a propensity to act in a manner that may endanger the safety of another, whether playful or not.” (Provorse v Curtis, 288 AD2d 832 [decided herewith]; see, Mitura v Roy, 174 AD2d 1020; see also, Anderson v Carduner, 279 AD2d 369, 369-370).”Marquardt v Milewski, 288 AD2d 928, 732 NYS2d 801.

Any “’known tendency to attack others, even in playfulness, as in the case of the overly friendly large dog with a propensity for enthusiastic jumping up on visitors, will be enough to make the defendant liable for damages resulting from such an act.’ (Thirlwall v Galanter, 66 Misc 2d 88, 90 [Sandler, J.], quoting Prosser, Torts, at 515 [3d ed.]; see also, Mitura v Roy, Anderson v Carduner 279 AD2d 369

In the Supreme Court, Westchester County, located in White Plains, New York, personal injury trial attorney Stephen Riebling successfully litigated and settled just such a case on behalf of his injured client. 

In that case, the client suffered a significant personal injury to her nose and face when a dog owned by an acquaintance jumped up at the client.

When the dog jumped, its mouth and teeth smashed into the client’s face resulting in serious injuries that required multiple surgeries. The owners of the dog defended the case by claiming that their dog had never bitten anyone before and was just a large friendly dog.

Attorney Riebling successfully demonstrated at trial that the dog had the requisite “vicious propensity” even though the dog had never bitten anyone before. Instead of arguing that the injury resulted from a dog bite, Attorney Riebling argued that the client’s injuries resulted from the dog’s natural inclination to jump up onto people. It was further shown that the owner’s were aware of the dog’s habit to jump and had acted to guard against the dog jumping onto people before this incident occurred
As compensation for her personal injuries, Attorney Riebling’s client accepted a mid-six figure settlement offer at trial.

*****

If you or someone you know has been injured and needs a personal injury attorney, please contact Stephen Riebling or any member of the firm for a free consultation. The firm’s personal injury attorneys regularly appear in all the courts of New York: Westchester, Bronx, Rockland, Putman, Dutchess and Orange Counties.