Criminal matters in New York State are governed by a statute of limitations.  The time within which a criminal action may be brought is the statute of limitations.  Most of the time the statute of limitations refers to the time allowed to bring a civil action however, the similar legal theory also applies to the prosecution of a criminal offense. 

Generally the more serious the crime the longer the prosecution has to bring the charges.  In the case of Class A felonies, such as Murder, there is no limitation on when the action may be commenced.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

• Class A Felony — No time limit, CPL 30.10(2)(a)
• Other Felonies — 5 years, CPL 30.10(2)(b)
• Misdemeanor — 2 years, CPL 30.10(2)(c)
• Violations — 1 year, CPL 30.10(2)(d)

Generally after a crime is committed charges must be filed within the above time frames. CPL 1.20(17)

Speedy Trial

Usually in a criminal matter charges are filed with the Court almost immediately.  However, an accused has a right to a speedy trial once the charges are filed with the Court.  The United States Constitution (6th Amendment) and by law in New York State require a speedy trial.  The laws governing speedy trial are some of the most complex in all criminal law however this overview should give you a good understanding of the speedy trial laws in New York State. 

These laws are litigated in every county including Westchester County, Orange County, Putnam, Rockland and Dutchess County.  In local criminal courts such as White Plains City Court, County Court, Yonkers, Greenburgh, Bedford, North Castle, Mount Vernon, Newburgh, Goshen, New Windsor, Southeast, Kent and other similar Courts all keep records of speedy trial time.   

The right to a speedy trial is broken down into two areas a Constitutional Speedy Trial Right and a Statutory Speedy Trial Right.

Constitutional Speedy Trial

The constitutional speedy trial looks to the length of time between the commencement of the action against the defendant and the commencement of trial.  A due process argument may be made if an inordinate amount of delay has occurred between stages in a criminal matter such as between commission of the offense and arrest.  This applies to all offenses.

To usually obtain dismissal of a criminal matter on constitutional speedy trial grounds in New York State any argument must include a showing that the accused has been prejudiced by the prosecutions failure to prosecute the charge in question.  If the delay is significant (usually a number of years) prejudice need not be shown unless there was justification for the delay (People v Guzman, 227 AD2d 219).

The Court will consider five factors to determine dismissal on Constitional speedy trial grounds.  Those factors include:

1. The length of the delay
2. The reason for the delay
3. The degree of actual prejudice to the defendant
4.  The seriousness of the underlying charge
5. the extent of any pretrial incarceration

See, People v Taranovich 37 NY2d 442 and People v Vernace 96 NY 2d 886

Statutory Speedy Trial under CPL 30.30

CPL 30.30 the speedy trial statute requires the People announce their readiness for trial within a certain amount of time after the action has been commenced against the defendant.  The important dates are the date of the commencement of the action and the date on which the prosecution announces readiness for trial.

The trial does not actually have to begin but if the people do not or can not announce readiness the case will be dismissed as a violation of the statutory speedy trial law.

CPL 30.30 —  Time restrictions

• Felony — 6 months
• A Misdemeanor — 90 Days
• B Misdemeanor — 60 Days
• Violation — 30 days
• Traffic Infraction — N/A

There are excludable periods of time that will stop the speedy trial clock and the prosecution will not be charged with the delay.  Some of the excludable time includes:

• Reasonable period of delay attributable to other proceedingsconcerning the defendant such as a competency proceeding, demands to produce, pre-trial motions, appeals. 
• Adjournments at the request of the defendant or consented to by the defendant.

• The defendant is absent or unavailable, such as a bench warrant or in jail in another jurisdiction.

• Time that the defendant is without counsel.

The Best Speedy Trial Defense

The best speedy trial defense involves a calculation of time starting with the date of the alleged crime itself and determining what time is chargeable to the prosecution as a violation of either statutory or due process rights.

Some cases may be dismissed in court others require a written motion.  A clear understanding of the various time periods is required.

All felonies in New York State must be charged by either a Felony Complaint, Indictment or a Superior Court Information (SCI).  In Westchester County, Rockland, Orange, Putnam and Dutchess Counties it is common to see a felony charged by way of a Felony Complaint.  However, in New York City, Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn Felony Complaints are rare. 

FELONY

First, some basic information about Felony Charges.  A Felony is a charge that can result in State Prison upon conviction usually over one year.  In New York State felonies are the most serious crimes.  Felonies are classified from the most serious “A” felonies to the less serious “E” felonies.   All felonies have the potential for a state prison sentence and are generally more complex then lesser crimes.

Accusatory Instrument

An “Accusatory Instrument” is the generic term that describes a variety of documents used to accuse a person of a crime.  A Felony Complaint, Indictment and Superior Court Information are all “Accusatory Instruments”.  The Accusatory Instrument sets forth the crime charged and in most cases the facts supporting the crimes charged.

Felony Complaint

A felony complaint serves as the basis for the commencement of a criminal action, but NOT as the basis for a prosecution.  CPL 100.10 and CPL 1.20.  Basically, a Felony Complaint can start a case but not finish it.  In order for the case to be brought to trial an Indictment or Superior Court Information is necessary.

In Westchester County, Putnam, Dutchess, Rockland and Orange counties in a local justice court such as Bedford, White Plains City Court, Greenburgh, Yonkers, North Castle, Port Chester in Westchester County a Felony Complaint will be filed by the police and the District Attorney.  When an accused appears in those courts or any justice court a felony complaint will charge a felony.  If an accused appears in County Court such as White Plains, Westchester County Court at 111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. or in Goshen, New York in Orange County Court 255-285 Main Street a felony charge is usually prosecuted by way of an Indictment or Superior Court Information.

Indictment

An indictment occurs only after a grand jury has voted to prosecute a charge(s) against an accused.  The Grand Jury Process will be discussed in another blog but for these purposes the point is that a felony must be prosecuted by way of indictment after a grand jury vote.

Superior Court Information

A Superior Court Information (SCI) is an instrument that a prosecutor can use to charge a felony but only if the accused waives their right to a Grand Jury.  An SCI is usually a accusatory instrument filed by the District Attorney during a plea bargain on a felony charge in County Court.  As part of that plea bargain the accused must agree to waive prosecution by Indictment and therefore a Grand Jury presentation.  Since this is a plea bargain it is usually agreed to prior to Court.

Speedy Trial and Discovery Concerns

Since a Felony Complaint is not a trial instrument, a prosecutor in local court can not announce readiness for trial under CPL 30.30.  Such and announcement would be illusory.  Readiness for trial on a felony charge requires an indictment.

Where a felony is charged in local court the accused is arraigned on the felony and arraigned on the felony again after an indictment.  Once the arraignment after indictment defense counsel will be able to obtain discovery, a bill of particulars, engage in motion practice and assert certain defenses.

Best Felony Defense

The best defense on any felony charge is to get as much information from the prosecution as possible before an indictment.  By way of policy several District Attorney Offices are less willing to negotiate with an accused after an indictment.  This is true in Westchester County, Putnam, Dutchess, Rockland and Orange Counties.  Of course, every case is different but the main concern is to avoid indictment if possible since the penalties are much more severe than a charge of a misdemeanor or violation.  Also, an accused does have the right to testify at a grand jury presentation and in some cases this is absolutely essential.

If an Indictment has already been handed down without a felony complaint it is very important to obtain all of the discovery in the case quickly and review the file with the accused to determine the best defense.  Afterwards, the criminal defense attorney should immediately contact the district attorney to determine their position on the case, and get any more information not obtained in discovery to determine the strength of the prosecutions case.  Only then can accused make an informed decision regarding how to proceed.  Lastly, it is absolutely essential that the accused and their attorney keep in contact with each other on a regular basis.

I hope this information has proven helpful.  The differences between Felony Complaint, Indictment and Superior Court Information (SCI) are important and should be reviewed carefully since there are so many different consequences at each level.

District Attorneys have relied on certified records to introduce certain lab reports in DWI, DWAI, DWAI drugs and other drug cases instead of having the actual lab analyst testify.  This seems to be changing with the most recent US Supreme Court case as outlined below.

Lab Reports at Trial in DWI, DWAI, DWAI Drug  and Drug Cases

At trial for an offense involving any Laboratory Report (usually a drug, DWI or gun charge case) the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment requires a criminal accused to be confronted with the testimony of lab analysts.

The United States Supreme Court in Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts, 129 S Ct 2527, held that a lab analyst’s certificate is testimonial and can not be admitted unless the analyst was unavailable to testify at trial and the accused had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the analyst.

DWI Blood/Breath Test Lab Reports

In Nassau County after a DWI trial the court sustained the defendant’s objection to the admission of the calibration log of the breathalyzer machine used to test his blood alcohol level as a certified business record and required the prosecution to present live testimony from the lab technicians who preformed the calibration.

The Best Criminal Defense

The best criminal defense is one that holds the government to their burden on each and every element of the crime.  This is especially true of DWI, DWAI, DWAI Drug and other Controlled Substance cases where a lab report is necessary.  In Westchester, Rockland, Bronx, Orange, Putnam and Dutchess counties the government will have their own report usually from the County Department of Lab and Research.  These lab reports must be attacked for their accuracy.  This additional requirement that the government bring the actual analyst into court is helpful to the experienced criminal defense attorney and the accused since it opens the door to in depth cross examination.

White Plains City Court Criminal Defense 

In the City Court of White Plains there has been an increase use by the department of labs and research in Westchester County of “preliminary” lab reports to support DWI, DWAI, DWAI Drug and other drug charges.  These lab reports are the very reports that need to be scrutinized for their accuracy and demanding the actual lab analyst to testify will help any criminal defense.

Southeast DWI Criminal Defense

Likewise, for any criminal defense for a DWI, DWAI, DWAI drug charge in busy DWI courts such as the Town of Southeast in Putnam County (Brewster).  These lab reports must be scrutinized as they usually are the prosecutions strongest form of evidence.

Physical Custody is the right of a parent to reside with his or her children.  Legal Custody is the right of a parent to make decisions for the children regarding the children’s education, religion, medical care, discipline, place of residence and associations with others.

Orange County Custody Trial

Recently, the Orange County Family Court awarded joint legal custody to both parents after a month long custody trial.  Attorney David R.  Sachs, represented the father and was able to successfully argue that the court should render an award of joint legal custody to the parties.  The father was facing the prospect of losing custody entirely of his children.  During the trial there were several contentious custody issues regarding the discipline of the children, child care, and the overall best interest of the children. 

In New York it is very unusual for a court to render an award of joint legal custody following a trial, especially in situations where there is a high level of tension between the parents.  Usually the New York Family Court awards sole legal custody to one parent following a trial, which makes the outcome that Attorney David R. Sachs was able to achieve on behalf of his client all the more impressive.  In addition to obtaining an award of joint legal custody, Attorney Sachs was also able to win a significant amount of visitation time for his client. 

Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP — Child Custody Attorneys

Attorney David R. Sachs is a child custody lawyer who handles numerous custody trials often with successful outcomes.   Contact David R. Sachs with your child custody issues at Riebling, Proto  & Sachs, LLP.

In Westchester County Court (White Plains) a handgun was suppressed with the consent of the District Attorney due to an admitted illegal search of an automobile by the Rye City Police Department.  The two felony charges for possession of a weapon were dismissed after indictment.

Rye City Police Search of a Vehicle

In the City of Rye a motorist was stopped for making an illegal right turn on a red light (traffic infraction).  After the vehicle was stopped the driver was found to have a suspended driver’s license (VTL 511) and asked to exit the vehicle.  The driver was handcuffed, placed under arrest and seated in the rear of the officer’s police vehicle.  After the arrest the officer began the search of the client’s vehicle and discovered a gym bag next to the driver’s seat.  The officer opened the bag and found gym clothes and a loaded, defaced, handgun wrapped in a sweatshirt.  The defendant was arrested for Criminal Possession of a Weapon and Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle (VTL 511).

The Illegal Search

After an investigation by criminal defense trial attorney, Andrew Proto it was determined that the police had no reasonable cause to search the vehicle.  There could be no safety concerns for the officer since the client was handcuffed in the back of the police vehicle.  The District Attorney claimed that the officer was simply inventorying the contents of the vehicle as the vehicle was about to be impounded and no illegal search was conducted.  However, the officer admitted that he had not searched the bag pursuant to an inventory search but for officer safety.

Motion to Dismiss the Criminal Possession of a Weapon Charge and to Suppress the Handgun

In the United States Supreme Court case of Arizona v Gant _ US_, WL 1045962 (2009), the Supreme Court overturned the search of defendant Gant’s car after he was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed and secured in the back of a police car.  Criminal Defense trial attorney Andrew Proto, argued the Rye City Case had the same facts as in Gant and any inventory search by the Rye City Police Department was an after thought by the police once the handgun was discovered. 

Suppression

Once the gun was suppressed on consent of the District Attorney the client was no longer facing a minimum five year sentence in state prison.  The best criminal defense is to aggressively defend serious charges such as criminal possession of a weapon and look for any violation of one’s constitutional rights.

The criminal defense trial attorneys at Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP regularly appear in the Courts of Westchester, Orange, Putnam, Dutchess and Rockland Counties.  If you or someone you know is facing a serious charge contact our office.  We look to every defense possible and pursue the best criminal defense to protect your rights.  We are always available for a FREE Consultation.

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.

Television and Movies always portray police officers reading Miranda rights to persons under arrest or suspected of a crime. This is very dramatic but not a good portrayal of when and how the police must read a suspect their Miranda Rights.

The Miranda rights are as follows:

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?”

The following case is a good example of the use of Miranda rights, when the are to be used and how they can protect someone under criminal investigation. It is important to note that one should never speak with the police and should contact a criminal defense lawyer immediately.

In People v Baggett, 57 AD3d 1093, the Court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress written statements and an audio recording during which he admitted to committing certain crimes. The prosecution did not meet its initial burden of proving that the statements were voluntary. At the time the defendant made the first incriminating statement, a reasonable, innocent person would not have felt free to leave.

Around midnight, the police pulled over the car the defendant was riding in, even though no traffic violations were committed. The police asked the defendant to come with them to the station, and the driver was allowed to leave. The defendant was transported in a marked police car, but was not handcuffed. He waited in an interview room, and when questioning started the door was closed. The police told him the information they had, including an accusation against him by an associate. After he denied stealing anything, the questioning continued.

The police did not administrator Miranda warnings until the defendant finally admitted that he stole the bicycle.

The pre-Miranda questions were accusatory in nature, and intended to elicit an incriminating response. Although the other statements were made after the Miranda warnings, they were tainted by the prior admission and there was no significant break in the questioning.

The statements were suppressed.

At Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP our criminal defense trial attorneys want you to understand your rights and how to protect yourself, in a stressful situation, from police misconduct. Our advice to our clients is that it is never advisable to talk to the police without a criminal defense attorney. The police are looking for an accused to make an admission to a crime since it is easier to obtain a conviction with an admission.

In Westchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam, Dutchess and Bronx Counties our criminal defense attorneys regularly appear in Court and conduct suppression hearings based upon statements made by an accused. Statements are very strong evidence of guilt and the best criminal defense must attack any statements made.

In certain circumstances the police DO NOT have to read you your rights so it is advisable NOT to make any statements at any time to the police. Immediately call our office for a FREE consultation.

In New York State, you are deemed to have given your consent to a breath, blood, or urine sample to determine your Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) at the time of a DWI arrest. You may however, refuse to consent to a BAC test. In fact, the police department and State Police are required to read you standard “Refusal Warnings” outlining the consequences of a refusal to submit to a chemical test.

Those warnings are:

1. You are under arrest for driving while intoxicated
2. A refusal to submit to a chemical test, or any portion thereof, will result in the immediate suspension and subsequent revocation of you license or operating privilege, whether or not you are convicted of the charge for which you are arrested.
3. If you refuse to submit to a chemical test, or any portion thereof, your refusal can be introduced into evidence against you at any trial, proceeding, or hearing resulting from this arrest.
4. Will you submit to a chemical test of your (breath/blood/urine) for alcohol? or (will you submit to a chemical analysis of your blood/urine for drugs?)

These warnings will be read to you and the Officer will usually ask you to initial a form with the warnings. One does not get to pick what type of test they would like to take for a BAC reading, but the warnings must be conveyed in clear and unequivocal language.

A DWI Refusal Hearing will be held at the Department of Motor Vehicles within 15 days of the arraignment on the DWI charge.

The license will be surrendered to the Court at arraignment and there is no eligibility for either a Hardship or Conditional license during this 15 day period from the Court or DMV. The Officer and the driver must appear at the scheduled Refusal Hearing at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

• If the driver fails to appear, the Refusal Hearing is deemed to be waived and the mandatory civil suspension takes effect.
• If the Officer fails to appear the driver’s license is restored until the rescheduled date.

At the hearing if the driver is found to have refused to submit to a breath, blood, or urine test for the DWI, the license is revoked for one year.

The only way to get your driver’s license back with conditional privileges is to plead guilty or be found guilty of an alcohol related violation (DWAI or DWI) assuming no prior alcohol charges within the last five years. After a guilty finding the driver can enter the Drinking Driver Program and obtain a Conditional license (12 months) for use to, from and during work, child care, medical and dental for the motorist and members of the household. Additionally, DMV offers a three hour weekly block of time of your choosing for personal matters.

A DMV Administrative Refusal Hearing, not a criminal court, The Judge can convict you on the Officer’s DWI paperwork even if the Officer does not appear.

The standard of proof is “Clear and Convincing” not “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt”.

If the Judge finds that you refused to submit to a test, your license will be revoked for one year. If, on the other hand, the Judge decides the paperwork, procedure, or testimony was not proper, then the ALJ could dismiss the case. The license would be restored.

The Refusal Hearing is important to our Criminal Defense DWI lawyers since it is an opportunity to cross examine the police officer before trial.

Many times our clients request a transcript of the hearing testimony to use at trial. Unlike a civil case depositions are not taken in a criminal case this however is an opportunity to get as much information out of the Officer about the arrest. In most cases this is an advantage for the New York State DWI Lawyer. Our DWI lawyers are always focused on providing the best possible defense and aggressively protecting your rights.

At Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP we have worked with clients in DWI refusal cases. The hearings are an important part of and DWI criminal defense and should be attended. In most cases the client has nothing to lose and everything to gain from fighting at a refusal hearing. Refusal hearings are generally conducted in the County of the arrest. Out DWI defense attorneys will defend these matters in any County in New York State including Westchester, Orange, Putnam, Dutchess, Rockland and the Bronx. It is important to act quickly to prepare the defense and be ready for the hearing as the hearing will be held within 15 days of arraignment.

Recently our attorneys represented a client at a DMV Refusal Hearing in the City of Yonkers, Westchester County. The State Trooper testified but did not demonstrate that the driver was adequately notified of the consequences of a refusal. Our DWI defense attorney immediately made an application to the ALJ to dismiss the case and that application was granted. The client walked away with his license and none of the consequences of a DMV Refusal including financial penalties.

If you have been arrested for DWI in New York State , you need an skilled NY attorney. Contact our office to discuss the defense of the case and your options to proceed. We are available for a free consultation for all cases and can explain the DWI Refusal Defense in New York State and how it relates to your case.

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.

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.