Blog

Too many times in my career, young adults with good backgrounds make stupid decisions. This case is one of them. Our client, a college student, got involved with three (3) other young men and acted as the getaway driver in what was an armed robbery of Caesars Atlantic City Casino in 2014. The case was prosecuted in the Atlantic County Court in New Jersey by the office of the Attorney General Casino Prosecution Bureau. The evidence established my client’s car as the getaway car and our client was implicated by several witnesses. Two of the other men went in the casino, placed a gun at a teller’s head and stole in excess of $180,000.00. Our client was arrested two (2) weeks later and made a full confession except for one detail: Our client maintained that although he knew there was going to be a theft, he did not know that the person going into the casino was armed with a weapon. One of the other defendants was a former employee and our client thought that he knew where the money was and that there was inside cooperation. His family, from Queens, immediately contacted Mr. Greenberg who has been fighting this case since 2014. Mr. Greenberg immediately understood there was a major difference in the sentencing structure if our client knew there was a gun and it was going to be an armed robbery. Although the Attorney General did not accept our client’s version at first, with persistence and due diligence, and pointing out other factual matters to the Attorney General, Mr. Greenberg was able to establish that our client did not know that the other participant was armed with a gun. The difference was significant in that an armed robbery conviction would mandate a sentence of up to 25 years and under New Jersey’s “No Early Release Act”, our client would have had to do 85% of the sentence! Instead, under the Theft charge, our client was sentenced to 7 years but the “No Early Release Act” did not apply. The bottom line is that our client was just released on July 10th, 2017 after serving three (3) months of his prison sentence under a New Jersey program known as “Intensive Probation Supervision”. Our client, now 23, has been reintegrated into society and is on his way to being a productive and contributing member of the community. No matter how serious your situation seems, contact Criminal Defense Lawyer Todd Greenberg for the best results at 718-268-0400 or at www.addabboandgreenberg.com.

Our client was charged with Forcible Rape in the First Degree, a charge that carries a potential twenty-five (25) years in jail, based upon what our client maintained was a consensual encounter. The Indictment charged that our client engaged in sexual intercourse with a female by means of “forcible compulsion”. It was alleged that our client “…did grab the informant by the informant’s hair, throw the informant to the floor, causing the informant to fall to the informant’s knees, hold the informant down by placing his hand on the back of informant’s neck and…” had intercourse without informant’s consent. Our client, who was visiting from France, had his family reach out to New York Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg who immediately arranged for him to be released on bail. Our client maintained his innocence and all plea offers were rejected. An immediate investigation ensued wherein Mr. Greenberg and Associate Attorney Caitlin Young spoke to all of our client’s roommates. A very thin wall separated the room where this allegedly occurred and our client’s roommate who was a visiting student from Japan. That witness was leaving New York on his way back to Japan but had critical information: He “heard” the encounter and described sounds coming from the woman that sounded pleasurable and not compelled by force! Using a section of the law that is rarely utilized, Mr. Greenberg and Ms. Young moved the court for an Order to conditionally examine the witness to preserve his testimony at trial. Although the Trial was not going to occur until six (6) months later, the witness was called into Court, questioned and cross-examined and his testimony was videotaped for use at the trial. After his testimony, the offer became lower but, upon the advice of Mr. Greenberg, our client did not accept any plea in that he was not guilty in that the sexual encounter was consensual. On June 6th, 2017, the matter appeared for trial wherein the District Attorney stood up and outright dismissed the case! Once again, due diligence and knowledge of the Law on the part of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Todd Greenberg and Caitlin Young prevented an injustice and the entire Indictment was dismissed against our client. If you need help call Criminal Defense Lawyer Todd Greenberg at 718-268-0400 or you can reach our firm, Addabbo and Greenberg, at www.addabboandgreenberg.com. Understanding the New York Rape Statutes and the Close-in-Age Defense New York's rape statutes distinguish between allegations involving forcible compulsion, lack of consent, and offenses based primarily on the complainant's age. In the case described above, the indictment alleged first-degree rape based on forcible compulsion. New York Penal Law § 130.35 defines first-degree rape to include sexual contact committed by forcible compulsion, while Penal Law § 130.00 defines “forcible compulsion” in terms of physical force or certain threats that place a person in fear of immediate death, physical injury, or kidnapping. That distinction matters when discussing a so-called close-in-age exception. New York does provide a limited close-in-age affirmative defense under Penal Law § 130.30, but it applies to specified age-based second-degree rape charges involving a victim under 15, where the defendant was less than four years older than the victim. It is not a general defense to a rape allegation based on forcible compulsion. Accordingly, based on the facts described in this case, the close-in-age defense was not the issue that resolved the prosecution. The defense instead focused on the allegation of forcible compulsion and developed evidence from a roommate who heard the encounter. The prosecution ultimately dismissed the indictment after that evidence was preserved and presented. Want to understand how New York's sex-offense statutes work? Read our Sex Crimes FAQ & Statutes Guide for a straightforward explanation of consent, age-based offenses, close-in-age defenses, and related New York criminal laws. This article discusses the law generally and the facts reported in this particular case. The application of a statute or defense depends on the exact charges, dates, ages, and circumstances of an individual case. This information is not legal advice.

Our client was arrested and charged in Queens County with the Misdemeanor crime of Driving While Intoxicated. The Police alleged that our client was operating his vehicle when he failed to signal and, thereafter, he was observed to have “bloodshot watery eyes” and a “a strong odor of an alcoholic beverage on his breath”. Upon advice of Criminal Defense attorney Todd Greenberg, all plea offers were rejected and the case proceeded to pretrial hearings. During a skilled cross examination of the arresting officer, Mr. Greenberg elicited that other than the failure to signal, he had no reason to pull over our client. The police officer admitted that our client was not swerving, that our client did make a proper stop at a stop sign and that other than failing to signal, the “Defendant was driving in a reasonable and prudent manner”. That language is critical because the burden of proof in a drunk driving case is that due to alcohol consumption a person is incapable of driving a vehicle in a “reasonable and prudent manner”. After legal briefs supporting the dismissal were filed, on the next court date the District Attorney stood up and dismissed the case outright, not even waiting for the Judge’s decision! This case illustrates how a skilled Criminal Defense attorney, knowing exactly what questions to ask which will elicit the proper responses, can win a case at the pre-trial hearing stage. If you are arrested and charged with DWI, or any crime, for the best result call Criminal Defense attorney Todd Greenberg at 718-268-0400 or visit us at www.addabboandgreenberg.com.

Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg, through persistence and diligent effort, obtained a Deferred Prosecution agreement for his client who was charged with defrauding the United States Department of Housing by obtaining Section 8 Housing Subsidies in connection with the lease of an apartment in New York City. It was alleged that our client obtained “Section 8” vouchers and failed to disclose to the Government that her fiancé was actually living in the apartment with her and never disclosed his income which would have rendered the client ineligible for such Aid. Although the evidence at first seemed strong, after investigating the facts of this case, it became clear to Mr. Greenberg that the only reason that the Client’s fiancé was living in the apartment was that the Client’s children were being threatened by a harassing neighbor and that the fiancé moved into the apartment to protect the client and her children. Further, it was discovered that it was that harassing neighbor who reported to the New York State Department of Investigation that our client was in violation of her lease and Section 8 rules! Although the Government was reluctant at first to allow a dismissal of the criminal charges, after several meetings and persistence by Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg, the Government allowed a Deferred Prosecution for a six (6) month period after which all charges will be dismissed and sealed as if it never occurred. The client, a New York City employee, will be able to retain her employment and resume her life. A Deferred Prosecution (also known as Pretrial Diversion) is an alternative to prosecution which seeks to divert certain offenders from tradition criminal justice processing into a program of supervision and services administered by the U.S. Probation service, resulting in a dismissal of all charges. Our Client will receive a dismissal of all Federal criminal charges instead of having a criminal record. If you have a need for an experienced Criminal Defense Lawyer, call Todd Greenberg for the best result. You can reach Mr. Greenberg at 718-268-0400 or visit us at www.addabboandgreenberg.com.

Phagwah Parade, March 12th 2017, Richmond Hill, Queens: ” I am very proud to be part of the Phagwah Parade Of New York planning committee!” Queens Attorney Todd Greenberg.

New York Criminal Defense attorneys Todd Greenberg and Caitlin Young, of Addabbo and Greenberg, obtained a major ruling in favor of their client resulting in a dismissal of the Indictment on October 11, 2016. Suppression of an alleged “gravity knife” was granted by the Honorable A. Kirke Bartley, Justice of the Supreme Court, County of New York, after extensive pre-trial hearings. The arresting officer testified he was in an unmarked police car and stopped at a traffic light with other officers when he saw the Defendant crossing the street with a “gravity knife” clipped to the Defendant’s pants pocket. The District Attorney argued that the stop was a justified “stop and frisk”, supported by a reasonable inference that the Defendant was committing the crime of Illegal Possession of a gravity knife. However, after extensive cross examination by attorney Todd Greenberg at the Mapp Hearing, it was established that the officer observed what he “believed” to be a gravity knife and that he thought it was “possibly a gravity knife”. The officer testified that he had extensive prior experience with regard to said knives. After briefing the issue, the Court held, as urged by Todd Greenberg and Caitlin Young, that the testimony of the Police Officer failed to establish that he had “reasonable suspicion” that the Defendant was committing a crime and that the police did not have “reasonable cause” to detain and make an inquiry of the Defendant. Instead of facing a mandatory minimum of two (2) years in jail, all evidence was suppressed and the Indictment dismissed in its entirety! Knowledge of the law and extensive cross-examination by experienced criminal defense attorney Todd Greenberg has resulted in a dismissal of an Indictment. Call Addabbo and Greenberg at 718-268-0400 or visit us at www.addabboandgreenberg.com if you need our help.

Many times in a criminal case, it is better to do nothing and wait. That is the advice that New York Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg gave his client in a DWI case in Suffolk County, which resulted in a dismissal of all charges based on a Violation of the Defendant’s Speedy Trial Rights. The Defendant was arrested on July 6 th, 2013 and charged with Two Counts of Driving While Intoxicated based on alleged erratic driving, statements made and a reading of 0.16% on the Breath Test. A motion to suppress statements was held on July 8, 2014 and the Motion was granted whereby a statement made by the Defendant was suppressed based upon a Violation of her Constitutional Rights. The Judge then marked the case for trial and advised that the defense would get a date in the mail to appear for jury selection. However, that date never came. Our client was anxious to resolve the case and insisted that Mr. Greenberg contact the Court so that the matter can be resolved. Based on his extensive experience in the criminal justice system, Mr. Greenberg urged the client to sit tight and not say a word and allow the time to accumulate. Although the client kept requesting a resolution, Mr. Greenberg prevailed and the client waited for that trial date. Eventually, on June 16 th, 2916, a little shy of two (2) years, Mr. Greenberg received a notice that the case will appear for trial. Too late! Mr. Greenberg filed a Motion to dismiss based on a violation of the Defendant’s Statutory and Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial which was granted in its entirety and the case was dismissed on September 13, 2016. An experienced criminal attorney not only knows how to fight a case in Court, but also knows when to remain silent when it is to the advantage of a client. Call Queens Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg for help if needed. 718-268-0400, www.addabboandgreenberg.com.

This accident took place on a sidewalk/driveway in front of a home in Queens County that had an elevated sidewalk slab. The eighty-year-old Plaintiff was walking with a friend when she tripped and fell and fractured her shoulder. No operation was necessary. The owner of the home had lost title to the house through a foreclosure and Personal Injury attorney Dominic Addabbo sued Wells Fargo Bank, the then title owner of the property. Although the Bank attempted to have the case dismissed based on the fact that they were not in possession, after thorough research, the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the motion. Further, Personal Injury attorney Dominic Addabbo was able to establish that the defect was not “minimal” and was actionable. Result: $175,000.00 recovered for our client! If you were injured by a uneven side walk or any other defect, call the personal injury Attorneys’ at Addabbo and Greenberg at 718-268-0400 or visit us at www.addabboandgreenberg.com/.

Queens Assistant District Attorney’s Association President Todd Greenberg at Citi Field with, from left, Dominic Addabbo, Esq., Chief Assistant District Attorney Jack Ryan, Honorable Michael Aloise, Justice of the Supreme Court, Robert Aiello, Esq., and Queens Assistant District Attorney Barry Frankenstein. What a great night!

A Queens Supreme Court Judge acquitted our client of all Felony charges regarding possession of illegal handguns in his apartment wherein there was an accidental discharge and a bullet entered a neighbor’s apartment. Our client was given the gun by a friend for self-defense purposes and was unloading it when it discharged into the apartment below. The police arrived, saw the bullet hole in the ceiling, went to our client’s apartment, searched the apartment and obtained two hand guns for which the Defendant did not have a license. He was arrested for Two Counts Criminal Possession of a Weapon with Intent to Use and Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree. The District Attorney of Queens County, relying on the Statutory Presumption of “Intent to Use”, charged the Defendant with a Class “C” Felony which mandated a mandatory minimum 3 ½ years if convicted. Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg filed a Motion arguing that the Defendant’s Constitutional Second Amendment Right to Possess Arms was violated by the application of the presumption of possession to the weapons which were in the Defendant’s home. Although the Judge denied the Motion, in acquitting our client, the Judge found that the Defendant overcame the presumption of “intent to use” and that the People failed to prove that element beyond the reasonable doubt, finding the Defendant guilty of a Class “A” Misdemeanor of Possession of a Firearm in his home. Significantly, Mr. Greenberg and Addabbo and Greenberg Associate, Caitlyn Young, did extensive research and presented every case to the Court where the presumption of “Intent to Use” was applied and distinguished the case at bar. Also significant, an Element of Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree is that the Defendant acted with a “Depraved Indifference to Human Life”, and the Court held that the People failed to prove that element beyond the Reasonable Doubt. Based upon Mr. Greenberg’s knowledge of the law, his extensive Trial experience and persistence and dedication on behalf of his client, our client was found “NOT GUILTY” of all Felony charges, and his exposure for punishment has been limited to that of a person convicted of a Misdemeanor crime. If you are charged with a serious crime, call Queens Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg for the best result at 718-268-0400 or reach us at www.addabboandgreenberg.com.

As a member of the Law Guardian Panel in Nassau County Family and Supreme Court since 1996, attorney Jill Stone has represented thousands of children. She’s seen firsthand the effect divorce and custody proceedings have on a child and she tries to make the situation as easy as possible by following the words of wisdom her father gave her when she was starting out. Stone spoke with Pulse on when a child needs a lawyer and how to make custody battles easier. Long Island Pulse: What are some common mistakes parents make in custody disputes? Jill Stone: Parents believe that the children, especially ones of young age, don’t hear things and don’t understand what is happening. Lots of times I come in and a child will say ‘oh you’re my lawyer cause my parents hate each other.’ Parents don’t realize the detrimental effects of their behavior. Pulse: What are some of those effects? Stone: Some children become very depressed. I’ve had clients that cut themselves. I’ve had clients that lock themselves in a room and refuse to talk to either parent. It manifests in many ways. Pulse: How does your role help to mitigate those effects? Stone: I tell my clients immediately that it’s no longer their problem. It’s mine. Instead of eavesdropping they can call me and I’ll get them accurate information. I try to take them out of the mix and I become their voice. I tell the parents that if they want to talk about the case with each other it should be between 9am and 3pm when the children are out of the house. I give them the children’s bill of rights under the law and let them know what the children are entitled to under the law. I try to explain that the children should be free from being in the middle and I ask the court for support in protecting the children and ask the court to admonish the parties. Pulse: Tell us a little bit about your background. Stone: My father was one of the top criminal defense attorneys in Queens County and I was brought up with the taste of practicing law and helping people. I worked with him from high school and after college I wasn’t sure what type of practice I wanted to go into. I worked in the District Attorney’s office as a paralegal at the beginning. When I decided I was going to law school I applied and was accepted to the City University of New York Law School at Queens College and was in the inaugural class. CUNY Law School is a law school in the service of human needs and after graduation I started practicing with my dad and my brother. Pulse: What inspired you to focus on children? Stone: My father’s specialty was criminal law. When I started to practice with him, there was a very bad case and the defendant also had a case in family court as well as supreme court. My father basically said OK you’re an expert in family court, gave me this file and I started to practice. As I got more into matrimonial law I had a case where the attorney for the child was assigned and her position was so detrimental to the little girl at issue, that I inquired into what it took to become an attorney for children. Pulse: Why would a child need a lawyer? Stone: In different parts of family law, including juvenile delinquency cases, neglect proceedings and especially in custody cases, parents believe what they’re advocating for their children and doing is what is in their best interest. However, the parents do not realize that their judgment is clouded because they are so involved emotionally in their own case that an independent attorney is needed to represent the child. Pulse: What qualifies a person as a child’s lawyer? Stone: It’s different in each county, but in Nassau County you have to be admitted to the bar for a minimum of five years and have a mentor who the lawyer will shadow for a period of time. There are many continuing legal education courses that must be taken by the attorney. Pulse: What does a child’s lawyer do? Stone: Attorneys for children must set forth the wishes of the child. The judge determines the best interest in terms of living arrangements and other issues concerning the child. As an attorney for children, I don’t have to agree with their wishes but I must present them to the court. Attorneys for children counsel the child on what the outcomes can be regarding custody issues and financial aspects when it relates directly to their behavior. Pulse: Does the age of the child matter? Stone: Yes, age matters. Attorneys for children are charged with representing the wishes of the child. If the child is young the attorney for the child must do their own investigation. If the child is five or older, we must represent the child’s wishes to the court and we may only substitute judgement if there is evidence that the child is not of sound mind. An example is in the case of an infant or if I feel the child’s judgment is pressured by outside forces I make sure to speak to the child’s pediatrician, caretaker or school so I receive the proper information to advise the court. Pulse: What was the best piece of advice you got when starting out? Stone: It comes from my father and I’ve tried to emulate it. The only thing you have is your integrity. Never compromise your integrity for anything or anybody and you’ll have the respect of whomever you’re dealing with. Your goal should be that if you say something in court or to your adversary that they won’t have to question it, because it came from you.