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.

WHEN DO THE POLICE NEED TO “READ YOU YOUR RIGHTS”?

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.

The DWI Administrative Refusal Hearing

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.

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.