Blog

By Thomas Zambito A BLOOD-SOAKED receipt with a scrawled plea for help- “Call 911”- was found near a Queens woman whose throat was slit, allegedly by her rapist. That chilling detail emerged yesterday at the trial of Hemant Megnath, accused of killing Natasha Ramen, 20, in 2007- months before she was to testify against him in the rape case. Prosecutors showed jurors the note as they opened their case against Megnath- and Officer Brian Webber recounted how he found the bloodied secretary in the doorway of her home. “She was bleeding profusely,” Webber told jurors. “She was unable to draw a full breath of air. She was gasping for breath, mouthing the words, ‘Help me….’ She was mouthing words but she was unable to speak.” Ramen’s throat had been slit from ear to ear, leaving a gash so deep, Webber said, that he could see her spine. It was unclear if she has written the message on the receipt. Megnath, accused of raping Ramen in 2005, was linked to her slaying through a tiny speck of blood found in his car. His lawyer, Todd Greenberg, is expected to attack the science behind the DNA analysis.

Queens judge is first in nation to approve controversial DNA test By Thomas Zambito DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER A Queens judge has become the first in the nation to approve a controversial DNA-tracking technique that can nail criminals with a speck of blood or the mere touch of a finger. Wednesday’s precedent-setting decision by Supreme Court Justice Robert Hanophy came in the case of Hemant Megnath, a man prosecutors say slashed a young woman’s throat just before she was about to testify against him in a rape case. Hanophy sided with Queens prosecutors who want to tell jurors about a trace of blood on a seat belt in victim Natasha Ramen’s car linked to Megnath through “touch DNA” testing. The technique has been used overseas to win convictions in several high-profile criminal cases. Such evidence also has been used in U.S. courts, and the city medical examiner has a lab devoted to it. But Megnath’s lawyer Todd Greenberg challenged the tests – and Hanophy held a series of hearings in 2008. “There is still a raging debate among scientists as to the reliability,” Greenberg said, “ the judge ruled against us.” Now Greenberg will have to attack the science behind touch DNA before a jury as Megnath goes on trial next week in the 2007 slaying. The test is largely the same as traditional DNA analysis, but allows scientists to scrutinize microscopic skin or blood cells. Critics say amplifying tiny samples distorts the results.

The Defendant was charged with Two Counts of Operating a Motor Vehicle while Intoxicated and Operating a Motor Vehicle while Impaired. It was alleged that on December 5, 2009, at the Queens Midtown Tunnel, the Defendant was operating his vehicle when a Police Officer observed the Defendant and alleged that the Defendant had watery and bloodshot eyes and an odor of alcohol on his breath. Thereafter, the Defendant blew a .11 at Central Testing. The attorneys at Addabbo & Greenberg prepared extensive pre-trial Motions which sought dismissal based upon a violation of the Defendant’s right to a Speedy Trial on the ground that the Complaint was insufficient. On May 14, 2010, the Judge granted the Motion to Dismiss based on the default of the Prosecution for failing to answer the defense Motion in a timely manner. Instead of suffering serious consequences with regard to a Driving While Intoxicated conviction, the charges against this Defendant were dismissed in its entirety. Not only do the attorneys of Addabbo & Greenberg fight DWI cases on the facts, but also file all appropriate Motions on behalf of its clients which, more times than one would think, results in a procedural default and a dismissal of the charges.

Newsday by Kathleen Kerr Last April, Janelle Trenchfield was told she had breast cancer. A biopsy at Winthrop-University Hospital in Mineola had confirmed the diagnosis, and so in June, the anguished Freeport woman had surgery to remove a lump and lymph nodes – only to find out days later that she hadn’t had cancer at all. The biopsy results, she learned, had been mixed up. A label with her name had been put on the tissue samples of a different patient. And now, Trenchfield, 35, has filed a negligence lawsuit against Winthrop in State Supreme Court. “One could imagine the extreme emotional stress, being told that you have cancer,” said her attorney, Todd Greenberg of Forest Hills. “Now this woman’s breast is severely scarred, lymph nodes were removed, which subjects her to disease, and she’s currently in psychological counseling for the trauma she had to go through.” Trenchfield declined to comment. Winthrop spokesman John Broder said the hospital has not been officially served with the lawsuit but acknowledges the mix-up. “After a thorough investigation, this was determined to be as a result of human error and procedural issues,” Broder said. “All procedures for the handling and labeling of tissue samples were immediately revised.” Broder did not provide any information about personnel involved in the mix-up or specifics about changes in procedure. The episode highlights continuing concern about medical errors in hospitals across the country. In 1999, the nonprofit Institute of Medicine issued a widely cited report estimating between 44,000 and 98,000 people died in hospitals each year as the result of medical errors. Arthur Levin, director of the nonprofit Center for Medical Consumers in Manhattan, said that tissue-sample mistakes point to a system breakdown. “These kinds of mistakes are human errors that can only be prevented by having systems in place to prevent them,” Levin said. “You have to develop a tried-and-true system that has double checks.” Greenberg said Trenchfield had a routine mammogram and sonogram at Winthrop in April and was told there was an irregularity in her right breast. She then had the biopsy at Winthrop and was told the results showed infiltrating ductal carcinoma. A surgeon at South Nassau Communities Hospital in Oceanside performed a lumpectomy on June 18. At the same time, the surgeon removed lymph nodes. On June 24, he told Trenchfield that tissue samples from the surgery were negative for cancer. That’s when Trenchfield called Winthrop, Greenburg said, and a hospital nurse called her on June 28 to say someone had mistakenly labeled another patient’s biopsy sample with her name. Broder, the Winthrop spokesman, would not identify the other patient or say whether that woman also received a wrong diagnosis. He said the other woman received appropriate “follow-up treatment.”

Evidence Of Refusal Of Breath Test Suppressed: Attorney Greenberg Wins Hearing Without Saying One Word A good lawyer knows the law and how to cross-examine a witness. A great lawyer knows when to say nothing and rest on the weakness of the evidence presented by the District Attorney. That is exactly what happened when Attorney Todd Greenberg did not cross-examine an Arresting Officer in a Drunk Driving case during Pre-Trial Hearings. The Defendant was charged with Driving While Intoxicated as a Misdemeanor. The Defendant refused to take to Breath Test which would measure his blood/alcohol content and the District Attorney wanted to use the fact of that Refusal as evidence at the trial. A Pre-Trial Hearing was granted and the Police Officer testified that he actually observed the Defendant in a black Toyota make a u-turn from where he was parked thereby causing an accident. The Police Officer then testified that the Defendant’s eyes were blood-shot and watery, that the Defendant had alcohol on his breathe and that the Defendant “refused the blood alcohol test”. Most significantly, at no time was testimony presented to the Court of what the Defendant actually stated in response to the Police Officer’s request to take the test. At that point, the record consisted solely of the Police Officer’s conclusion that the Defendant refused to take the test without any facts whatsoever as to what the Defendant did or said for the Court to draw that conclusion. Instead of cross-examining the Police Officer which would give the Police Officer the opportunity to be more specific, Attorney Greenberg asked for a recess, spoke to his client, and advised the client that there should be no further questions of this Police Officer. In a Memorandum of Law that was prepared after the Hearing, Attorney Greenberg pointed out to the Court that the Hearing record was devoid of any testimony whatsoever as to how, or even if, the Defendant refused to take the test. The Police Officer’s testimony failed to establish the manner or words with which the Defendant allegedly refused to take the chemical test. In its Decision and Order, the Honorable Robert M. Raciti, Judge of the Criminal Court, Queens County, noted that “There was no cross-examination” and then found that “…there was no evidence in the record concerning how the Defendant is alleged to have manifested his refusal…”. The Court stated that “The People’s witnesses must testify as to facts rather than conclusions, in order for the People to meet their burden.” After the suppression of this important evidence on June 17, 2009, the Defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Driving While Impaired, a non-criminal offense. Extensive knowledge of the law by the Attorney’s at Addabbo & Greenberg allowed their client to avoid a criminal conviction for Driving While Intoxicated.

Boy, 15, charged in Roosevelt murder  Cody Hernandez BY MATTHEW CHAYES A 15-year-old boy from Roosevelt — a reputed member of the Crips street gang — was arraigned Thursday on a murder charge in the death of a rival from the Bloods, according to court records and Nassau County police. Cody Hernandez is accused of shooting Lord Carter with a .25-caliber handgun, striking him in the stomach and left thigh, according to a felony complaint. At the arraignment hearing Thursday, a judge ordered Hernandez jailed without bail. He is charged as an adult with second-degree murder. The police said a witness saw the two arguing June 21 at East Fulton Avenue and Scherer Place in Roosevelt just before Hernandez fired around 11:15 p.m., then ran away. And the day before, the two had a dispute in Centennial Park in Roosevelt, said homicide Det. Sgt. Richard Laursen of the Nassau police. “There was some personal animosity between the two,” Laursen said. “Without a gun, it would have just been a dispute.” The murder weapon has not been recovered, Laursen said. Just before his latest arrest, Hernandez had been in a juvenile jail for violation of probation stemming from a criminal case in family court, according to records. Citing the confidentiality of juvenile court records, a Nassau police spokesman refused to detail Hernandez’s previous crime. Hernandez pleaded not guilty at his arraignment at First District Court in Hempstead, said his attorney, Dominic L. Addabbo of Forest Hills. Addabbo said he would not comment on the merits of the case. Hernandez is due back in court next week. Addabbo said he and his client are deciding whether Hernandez should testify before a grand jury. No one answered the door at the home where records say Hernandez lives. A neighbor who refused to give his name called the teen’s arrest “shocking” and “a tragedy for the family.” Asked about the arrest, Carter’s girlfriend, Aleyah Cust, 19, said, “It’s a big weight off my shoulders. I’d rather him be arrested than in the streets.” Staff writers Laura Rivera and Michelle Trauring contributed to this story.

On May 22nd 2009, the Defendant, who pled guilty to distributing 50 grams or more of cocaine base (crack cocaine), received what a Federal Judge called a “lenient” sentence based upon arguments made by Attorney Todd D. Greenberg at Sentencing. The Defendant, pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, faced a sentence range of 70 to 87 months. In a Pre-Sentence Memorandum, Mr. Greenberg pointed out to the Court that on April 29th, 2009, at a United States Senate Hearing entitled “RESTORING FAIRNESS TO FEDERAL SENTENCING: ADDRESSING THE CRACK-POWDER SENTENCING DISPARITY”, an Assistant Attorney General stated that the sentencing disparity (a person selling crack cocaine would receive the same mandatory minimum sentence as someone selling a hundred times as much powder cocaine) was “difficult to justify based on the facts and science, including evidence that crack is not an inherently more addictive substance than powder cocaine.” Further, it was pointed out to the Judge that a review of the legislative history behind the adoption of the 100 to 1 ratio was that Congress sought to focus the five and ten year mandatory minimum penalties on “serious” and “major” traffickers, those responsible for delivering very large quantity of drugs. During sentencing, Mr. Greenberg argued that this Defendant was not a major trafficker and that fairness in drug sentencing, based upon the Justice Department April 29th, 2009 statement, would require a substantially less prison term than the Guideline range. The Federal Judge agreed and sentenced the Defendant to one year and one day instead of a minimum sentence of 5 years and 10 months. By being up to date on current events occurring in the United States Senate regarding Hearings on Crime and Drugs, the Attorneys at Addabbo & Greenberg were able to bring the most current legal argument before the sentencing Judge which resulted in a substantially less jail sentence.

BY ANN GIVENS ann.givens@newsday.com A Nassau jury convicted a Winthrop-University Hospital medical technician of fondling a patient but could not decide whether he was guilty of having oral sex with that man or two others. After deliberating for three full days, the jury found Ronald Caparella, 45, of Glen Oaks, guilty of a misdemeanor, forcible touching, but could not reach a unanimous verdict Tuesday on three felony charges against Caparella, including third-degree criminal sex act. Prosecutors and Caparella’s defense lawyer, Todd Greenberg of Forest Hills, are due back in court May 7 to discuss how to proceed with the case. Prosecutor Jamie Johnson said Caparella, a sonogram technician at a thoracic and cardiovascular office run by Winthrop in Mineola, attempted to have oral sex with male patients three times – twice in 2004 and once in 2007. Johnson said that because Caparella is a medical professional, he could not legally have sex with patients, even if they consented. The three patients who testified against Caparella all said they did not consent to have sex with Caparella, although in his closing argument, Greenberg questioned why they had not protested more after they said Caparella made advances on them. Greenberg said that Caparella was not a medical professional and did not diagnose or treat patients – only took photographs of them for the doctors to use. In the end, it was the question of whether Caparella was a medical professional that jurors said they could not agree on, asking to have the legal definition of medical professional read back to them several times during their deliberations.

On March 18, 2009 immediately prior to trial, the Queens District Attorney dismissed all DWI charges against the Defendant who was permitted to enter a plea of guilty to the Traffic Infraction of failing to signal. The Defendant was arrested and charged pursuant to VTL §1192.3, Operating a Motor Vehicle while under the Influence of Alcohol, a Misdemeanor. It was alleged that the Defendant failed to signal while making a right turn and then drove over double yellow lines. When stopped by the Police, it was alleged that he was intoxicated in that he had a strong odor of alcohol beverage on his breathe and blood-shot watery eyes. The Intoxilyzer exam was refused. At a pre-trial Hearing in this matter, the Police Officer testified that he observed the Defendant for at least three blocks before being pulled over. During cross-examination, Attorney Todd Greenberg elicited from the Police Officer that the Defendant was operating the vehicle in a “regular and prudent manner”, for that three blocks, which considerably weakened the District Attorney’s case. This case is an example of how important proper Legal representation is from the inception of a Driving While Intoxicated case and having experienced counsel at Pre-Trial Hearings.

By Joanna Molloy Daily News Columnist On the first day of trial in what will forever be known as the Kidney Divorce, Dawnell Batista sat below a photograph of a rambling, shingled white house brushed by long beach grasses. The only thing missing was a picket fence. She closed her eyes, as if trying to hear the breezes of a more peaceful time. Like her wedding day, when she looked like a movie bride and was marrying a handsome doctor. She opened her eyes, but she never looked at her estranged husband, Dr. Richard Batista, across the courtroom in what’s euphemistically called Nassau County Matrimonial Court. He never looked at Dawnell, who, despite hellish health, is still a complete babe. He determinedly stared down at his table. When he gave her a kidney in 2001, he saved her life. Now, each is essentially dead to other. How else could they forget their three kids enough for him to tell the world he believes she slept with her personal trainer – and for her to claim he sniffed her lingerie for evidence she was having an affair? “The children are distressed and embarrassed,” said Jill Stone, the court-appointed guardian for the kids, ages 9, 11 and 14. “It’s hard for them to go to school. They believe their teachers and friends know everything that is going on. The family’s life is in the public now.” Maybe Christie Brinkley started a Long Island trend when she told the world that cheating hubby Peter Cook spent thousands on Internet porn. What a lovely thing for their kids’ schoolmates to visualize, and remind them of in the cafeteria. Who can forget New Jersey’s battling McGreeveys, who batted around charges involving gay sex and three-way romps. Even Dina and Michael Lohan found a way to finally shut up and settle to protect their kids. Of course, neither of the Batistas is the celebrity in the room. That would be Dominic Barbara. While Dawnell has chosen the measured, gentlemanly Douglas Rothkopf, Dr. Batista brought in the charismatic pit bull Barbara to jump-start this divorce case, which has dragged on four years. Bam! Barbara moved to have Dawnell “incarcerated” for not allowing Dr. Batista to see his kids for most of three years. Bam! “This is not ‘let’s be friends time,'” Barbara said to Special Referee Jeffrey Grob. Bam! “It’s not ‘Let’s Make a Deal time.'” When Stone told Grob the children could visit their father “as long as nothing derogatory was said about their mother,” Barbara cried, “Shame! Shame! Let’s just see if the children’s minds haven’t been turned completely against HIM!” The doctor had tears in his eyes; his wife stared silently. Barbara was the one who came up with the idea of placing a value on the kidney Batista donated to his wife – $1.5 million – only to lose her. Dawnell Batista is seeing another man, and is living in the million-dollar waterfront Massapequa home he bought, while he’s renting in Ronkonkoma and sending support checks. He’s got to be bitter. He’s got to want to hold onto part of his surgeon’s paycheck, if nothing else. Outside, Barbara worked the microphones like Frank Sinatra, while Batista said he had been a “2-4/7” father. Perhaps spurred by Barbara, Rothkopf retorted that Batista had exhibited “violent conduct” and “cruel and inhuman treatment” to Dawnell, a nurse, catechism teacher and “woman of valor” who survived three transplants and a double mastectomy. Rothkopf added ominously: “I have been receiving calls from other women with interesting stories that are going to come out.” Now, that will be great for the kids.

Ex-horse race workers saddle up and sue Spitzer By Nicole Bode Daily News Staff Writer Wednesday, September 10th 2008, 12:33 AM A pair of vindicated horse racing workers slapped ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer with a $100 million lawsuit Tuesday, claiming his professional ambition fueled a legal witch hunt that cost them their jobs and reputations. Former New York Racing Association employees Mario Sclafani, 51, of Dutchess County, and Braulio Baeza, 68, of West Virginia, were cleared in September 2007 of charges they rigged races by accepting bribes from overweight jockeys trying to bluff the scale. Spitzer, then the attorney general, spearheaded the NYRA corruption indictment in 2005. A Saratoga judge tossed out the charges midtrial, citing unreliable evidence from prosecutors such as improperly calibrated scales and failure to account for the jockeys’ gear in the measurements. “From the beginning, the prosecution did not make sense,” said lawyer Todd Greenberg, who filed the federal suit with Paul DerOhannesian. The suit also names half a dozen other individuals from the NYRA, the attorney general’s office and the state police – claiming they maliciously prosecuted the pair. The lawyers said they will have to overcome immunity charges that protect prosecutors and investigators doing their job.

On September 9, 2008 a Queens Jury returned a not guilty verdict on all criminal charges arising from the arrest of the Defendant, a liquor license holder and bar/restaurant owner. The Defendant was arrested on December 12, 2006 and charged with Driving While Intoxicated, a Class-A Misdemeanor, under two separate and distinct theories: Common Law DWI and Blood Alcohol Content of more than .08%. The evidence established that the Defendant did take a chemical test of his blood at the Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit which registered a .09%. Attorney Todd D. Greenberg attacked the result of the Chemical Test/Intoxilyzer Machine by pointing out on cross-examination the Arresting Officer that although the reading was .09% at the time of the test, approximately one hour after the arrest, that does not necessarily mean that the reading of .09 was valid at the time of the operation of the vehicle. Mr. Greenberg was able to elicit from the witness that depending on a person’s rate of metabolism and the time when the person had a drink and ate, that due to the absorption of the alcohol from the stomach to the blood system, the blood alcohol level could have been lower at the time of operation than at the time of the test. Although the Defendant admitted to the Police that he had consumed alcohol, the District Attorney could not establish the time that Defendant was drinking and, therefore, was not able to argue to the jury as to whether the .09 reading would have been higher or lower at the time the Defendant was operating the motor vehicle. Additionally, the Defendant was charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Vehicle in the Third Degree, based on the fact that he had several suspensions of his license. Most recently, the United States Supreme Court held in the Crawford case that a Defendant in a criminal case has a right to confront the witnesses against him. The District Attorney attempted to introduce into evidence an Affidavit of Regularity/Mailing of the Motor Vehicle Bureau to establish that the Defendant was mailed a letter of suspension and therefore knew or had reason to know of his suspension, a material element of that charge. Based on a Crawford objection raised by Mr. Greenberg that evidence was not permitted to be seen by the Jury. Without that necessary element, Mr. Greenberg’s Motion to Dismiss the Misdemeanor charge was granted prior to submission of the case to the Jury. Although the Defendant was acquitted of all Misdemeanor charges and has no criminal record, he was found guilty of a lesser charge of Driving While Impaired, a violation and not a crime, which has no effect on his liquor license.