Blog

Our client, a Senior at the University of Albany, was arrested, charge and Indicted for Rape by force and other related charges. There is no question that such allegations are serious and taken seriously by this office. However, such allegations are not always true. This was that case! From the beginning of this prosecution in 2019, Mr. Greenberg’s Client, upon Mr. Greenberg’s advice, turned down all plea offers and was determined to take this matter to a Jury. After reviewing all the evidence, including a “controlled phone call”, it was the defense position, as the Client said, that this was a consensual sexual encounter between the parties. Indeed, a close scrutiny of a one-hour long phone call found, in Mr. Greenberg’s opinion, that certain phrases used by the Complainant, when put in context, indicated consent. At the final pre-trial conference held one week before the Trial was to commence, with the Judge and the Albany District Attorney, Mr. Greenberg convinced the District Attorney that the Complainant’s credibility was highly questionable. The District Attorney decided not to proceed to Trial with the case and offered a Violation instead of a Crime. Mr. Greenberg advised that it would be prudent to end the case with a guilty plea to Harassment, a Violation and not a Crime, instead of risking a Jury Trial. On March 9th, 2020, the parties appeared in Albany County wherein the case resolved with a non-criminal disposition. Of note, the Albany County Judge stated, on the record, regarding Mr. Greenberg, that “…I think your attorney has done an excellent job advocating for you…” The New York Rape Statutes and When a Close-in-Age Defense May Matter New York law recognizes several different forms of rape, and the applicable statute depends on the allegations. For example, Penal Law § 130.25 includes third-degree rape based on sexual contact without consent, while Penal Law § 130.30 addresses second-degree rape involving, among other circumstances, an adult engaging in sexual contact with a person under 15. New York's close-in-age defense is limited. Penal Law § 130.30 provides an affirmative defense for the age-based portions of second-degree rape when the defendant was less than four years older than the victim at the time of the conduct. The defense therefore can be important in an age-based prosecution, but it does not automatically apply simply because two people are relatively close in age. In the Albany case discussed here, the published case summary describes an allegation of rape by force and the defense's position that the encounter was consensual. The case ultimately resolved with a plea to Harassment, a violation rather than a crime, after defense counsel challenged the complainant's credibility and presented the context of a recorded telephone conversation. The original case summary does not identify the parties' ages or specify the precise statutory subdivisions of the original indictment. For that reason, it would be inaccurate to say that a close-in-age defense actually applied in this case. If the prosecution had instead involved an age-based second-degree rape charge under Penal Law § 130.30, the parties' ages could have made the less-than-four-years affirmative defense legally relevant. On the facts publicly described in this post, however, the reported resolution turned on the consent and credibility issues—not a documented close-in-age defense. For a clearer explanation of New York sex-crime law, see our Sex Crimes FAQ & Statutes Guide, covering rape statutes, consent, age-based offenses, close-in-age defenses, and other issues that can affect a criminal sex-offense case. 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. If you have been charged with a sexual offense contact Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg at (718) 268-0400 or visit us at www.Queenslaw.com.

On March 3rd, 2020, a New York Supreme Court Jury rendered a verdict in favor of our client who was injured and struck her head when caused to fall by Long Island Railroad door that closed on her. New York attorney Todd Greenberg clearly established through extensive cross-examination of the conductor and the ticket collector that the conductor was actually turned the other way when she should have been watching the door that the Plaintiff exited from. Our client, 71 years old at the time of the accident, was violently pitched to the ground, struck her head and suffered a concussion and subdural hematoma. Luckily, no operation was required, but Plaintiff did suffer cognitive defects for two years after the accident. Prior to trial the offer was $250,000.00 which was rejected. The Long Island Railroad offered $675,000.00 after summations which, upon advice of Mr. Greenberg, Plaintiff rejected. After deliberation for approximately five (5) hours, the Jury returned a $1.5 million verdict on behalf of our client. Mr. Greenberg obtained a verdict for 5 times the amount offered! Please call Addabbo and Greenberg 718-268-0400 or visit our website www.addabboandgreenberg.com if you need representation in an accident case.

Our client, a 62-year-old woman, was injured on November 30th, 2017 in Queens County, when she tripped and fell on a defective sidewalk. The home abutting the sidewalk was owned by an LLC, thereby immediately triggering New York City Administrative Code §7-210, which shifted liability for a defective sidewalk from the City of New York to the adjacent property owner unless the property was a one, two, or three family home that was occupied by the owners. Since this property was not owner occupied, a direct action was taken against the property owner.  The defense Attorney claimed that the sidewalk defect, a mis-leveling of sidewalk slabs which caused our client to trip and fall, was open and obvious and should have been avoided by our client who walked on that part of the sidewalk routinely.  On January 15th, 2021, after extensive negotiations, the case settled for $250,000.00 for the pain and suffering of our client who suffered a fractured wrist. Our team has extensive experience representing victims of sidewalk slip and fall accidents, including a recent verdict of $1.5 million dollars and a recent settlement of $3 million, all within the last year! Let our Attorneys help you recover compensation for your pain and suffering, your lost wages and medical expenses, as well as emotional injuries caused by the negligence of others. If you have been injured in a slip and fall accident on a sidewalk, get immediate medical care and then contact Addabbo & Greenberg at 718-268-0400 or visit us at www.Queenslaw.com.

Our client had just left a matinée show on Broadway when, while walking towards the train, tripped on a grating owned and maintained by the New York City Transit Authority. Within two (2) days after the accident, Personal Injury Attorney Todd Greenberg, along with an expert engineer, examined the grating, took detailed pictures and concluded that the grading was an inch and a half above the sidewalk. Citing New York City Laws and Statutes, Plaintiff was granted Summary Judgment against the New York City Transit Authority and the case proceeded to damages. Our client suffered an acute fracture through the three columns of her spine at L3-4 and had to undergo a 13hr. three-part operation. After extensive negotiations with the Transit Authority, Mr. Greenberg was able to negotiate a settlement that ensures that our client will be compensated for her injures and future pain and suffering. Here is what our client said: January 2020 Mr. Greenberg took my personal injury case in April 2015. It was a difficult time for me and my husband as well as a difficult physical recovery. Mr. Greenberg, Mr. Rothbard and the wonderful staff of the law office could not have been more supportive. They kept us informed throughout the process; Mr. Greenberg was diligent in working to obtain the best possible outcome for us and through it all so very supportive. Our case was settled with a very positive outcome. My husband and I cannot begin to express our gratitude to Mr. Greenberg and all of the staff who were so kind to us. We would highly recommend Mr. Greenberg and his law office to anyone needing assistance with a personal injury case. With much gratitude, Maureen and Jim Please call us at 718-268-0400 or visit us at www.Queenslaw.com.

Our client, a forty-five (45) year old male, was arrested in State College Pennsylvania and charged with various Felony charges involving his breaking and entering into two (2) homes. Our client’s family, who have known Mr. Greenberg for over thirty (30) years, hired Mr. Greenberg to represent the young man in Pennsylvania when local counsel could not favorably resolve the case. Immediately, Mr. Greenberg discovered that the client’s history involved severe mental illness and at the time of the client’s actions, he was delusional. Mr. Greenberg immediately subpoenaed past medical records, which were extensive, and filed a Notice of Insanity Defense, (In New York, the term “Insanity” has been replaced with “Mental Disease or Defect”) indicating that at the Trial the client would interpose a defense that he was not responsible for his actions based on mental incapacity. After extensive Conferences with the District Attorney, Mr. Greenberg was able to convince the District Attorney that the client should not be held criminally responsible because at the time of the act he could not form an intent to commit a crime. Instead of a trial and a possible jail sentence on a Felony, the District Attorney agreed to a Deferred Prosecution wherein the client will receive counselling for a two (2) year period and upon successful completion, the charges will be dismissed and sealed as if the incident never occurred! Todd Greenberg and the attorneys at Addabbo and Greenberg are available to help in any Criminal matter no matter what State. Our experience in Mental Disease defenses is extensive. Please call us at 718-268-0400 or visit us at www.www.addabboandgreenberg.com.

On Behalf of Addabbo & Greenberg | Nov 6, 2019 | Firm News | We established this blog to share stories and information about topics relevant to our practice. Our intent is to regularly provide posts highlighting legal issues of local, state and national interest that we think you will find interesting. Check back later for updates.

Thank you Roshan Ali Ahmad, Rozanna Beaumont, President Nazar Mustafa Rakia and the Congregation of the Masjid Ar-Rahman Mosque for the warm and loving reception you gave me. It was a great experience to share Iftar and Ramadan with you and such wonderful people.

Due to the tireless and diligent efforts of attorney Dominic L. Addabbo over the course of almost two years, and after numerous court appearances and conferences with the District Attorney’s Office, Mr. Addabbo was able to obtain a plea of not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect, thereby saving our client a potential jail term of up to 25 years in prison. The negotiated plea resulted in our client being placed in a non-secure psychiatric facility under a civil order of commitment with no criminal penalties, an extraordinary outcome for a case of this serious nature. Once again, the expertise of the attorneys at Addabbo and Greenberg in defending persons suffering from a serious mental disease has yielded an extremely positive result, one that will provide our client with rehabilitation and treatment instead of incarceration.

BY: By Robert E. Kessler. STAFF WRITER A bloody shoe print found next to the body of a Hicksville woman savagely murdered in her home in January looks like it should be a key piece of evidence in a homicide trial rather than a fraud trial. Especially since federal prosecutors say the print matches a shoe, a left brown dress shoe, size 10, of the victim’s estranged husband, a Queens millionaire, from whom she was seeking a divorce partly on the grounds that he was trying to cheat her out of her half of a $1.4-million estate. But because of both a quirk in federal law and the way in which the initial homicide investigation was conducted, the bloody shoe print may help convict the husband of fraud in federal court. If that happens, he may end up with a sentence as harsh as a murder conviction in state court would bring. The federal court case involves Ali Bessaha, 62, of 43-20 40th St., Long Island City, who is accused of defrauding his late wife, Ourida, 54, out of her share of some of their joint assets in the midst of bitterly contested divorce proceedings. Ourida was found slain by numerous blows from a blunt instrument to her head shortly before a key hearing in the divorce case, according to statements by Assistant U.S. Attorney Gary Brown at a recent pretrial hearing in U.S. District Court in Hauppauge. Bessaha’s attorney, Todd Greenberg of Forest Hills, said his client is not guilty and neither defrauded nor murdered his wife. Greenberg also argued that to allow evidence of an alleged murder into a simple fraud case would violate his client’s rights to a fair trial and so inflame a jury that his client could not get a fair trial. Greenberg also said that the shoe was a common one and that many men own such a pair. But Brown has been arguing in pretrial motions and at the pretrial hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Leonard Wexler, in what is known as a Mastrangelo hearing, that the federal government should be allowed to introduce evidence that Bessaha killed his wife to support its contention that the husband also defrauded her. The evidence would include the bloody shoe print, which Brown says has a unique pattern, as well as statements Ourida Bessaha made during the divorce case that her husband had been cheating her and had threatened her with violence. Normally, the statements of a dead person could not be introduced into a trial because it would violate two fundamental tenets of law: the constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment to confront one’s accuser and a rule of court procedure that bars the admission of hearsay statements, defined as statements made outside of court. But there is an exception to this in a Mastrangelo hearing, named after Richard Mastrangelo of Huntington, who was sentenced to nine years in prison in 1982 for smuggling 23 tons of marijuana and a half-million methaqualone tablets from Colombia to Queens. The main evidence against him was the grand jury testimony of a man who was murdered before he could testify at the smuggling trial. The federal courts have ruled that if the government can show at a pretrial hearing that a defendant was involved in the murder of a key witness, then the witness’ statements can be introduced at a trial. In court papers, Brown quoted both U.S. Supreme Court and federal Appeals Court rulings that state that “neither in criminal nor in civil cases will the law allow a person to take advantage of his own wrong” and “any other result would mock the very system of justice the confrontation clause was designed to protect.” But it is up to a judge to decide whether the murder evidence is too prejudicial to be allowed into a trial, and whether the jury should be allowed to hear the statements made by the defendant’s wife before she was killed. Judge Wexler has reserved decision. Federal postal inspectors found the shoe matching the bloody shoe print in Bessaha’s Queens home, according to testimony at the Mastrangelo hearing by postal inspector Carl Sclafani. The Nassau district attorney’s office and the Nassau homicide squad had contacted federal officials about evidence they uncovered during the homicide investigation indicating Bessaha was using bank accounts in France and Algeria, but they did not have enough evidence in that investigation to search Bessaha’s house, Sclafani said. Fred Klein, the chief of the district attorney’s Major Offense Bureau, says Bessaha is still the only suspect in his wife’s murder. But a county murder trial may not be necessary if Bessaha is convicted of the federal charges of mail and wire fraud and money laundering. While the federal sentencing guidelines call for a sentence of 8 years, the judge has the ability to increase the sentence for up to 60 years in a fraud case that involves a murder. The guidelines state that in sentencing “a substantial increase may be appropriate if death was intended É or if the underlying offense was one for which the levels do not reflect an allowance for the risk of personal injury, such as fraud.” 11-10-1999, pp A48.

Knowledge of the Driving While Intoxicated Laws, as well as extensive preparation and cross-examination at a Pre-Trial Hearing, has resulted in a dismissal of all Driving While Intoxicated charges against Addabbo and Greenberg’s Client. The allegations were that the Defendant failed to signal when entering into traffic from a parked position and the police observed the Defendant to be in an intoxicated condition. In addition, the Defendant refused to take a Breath Test and made the statements “I had two beers prior to driving.” The New York Court of Appeals, People v. Cruz, defined intoxication as “…a greater degree of impairment which is reached when the driver has voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that he is incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which he is expected to posses in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver.” Knowing the law, at a Pre-Trial Hearing, Attorney Todd Greenberg elicited during cross-examination the following testimony of the arresting officer: “that the motorist was proceeding in a normal fashion after pulling out from the curb;” that the police officer did not observe the motorist passing over a yellow line;” “that the motorist did not strike any vehicles;” “that the motorist complied with the Police Officer’s directions to pull over;” ” that the motorist did not fumble any papers while looking through his wallet to get his license;” “that the motorist did not stumble out of his car and got out of his car as a ordinary and reasonable person;” “that the motorist followed all of the police instructions.” The bottom line is that at the Pre-Trial Hearing it was established that the Defendant was operating his vehicle as a “reasonable and prudent person” would. Based on experience, knowledge of the Law and a planned cross-examination, a client of Addabbo and Greenberg had his DWI case dismissed prior to Trial.

The Defendant was charged with violating New York State Trademark Laws by selling counterfeit DVDs and CDs. After extensive research and a written motion prepared by Addabbo & Greenberg Nassau County District Court Judge Andrew M. Engel dismissed the charge on the ground that the complaint failed to set forth every element of the crime charged. Significantly, as cited by the New York Law Journal, “The Court noted Defendant correctly argued the instrument failed to identify or distinguish the characteristics of the genuine and counterfeit trademarks, which was necessary before the pleading could be found facially sufficient.” Judge Engel adopted attorney Ring’s argument and dismissal was granted. Instead of being brought to trial on a serious criminal charge, due to the legal expertise and research of Addabbo & Greenberg the charge was dismissed.