Blog

In a Trial that concluded on October 13 th, 2010, Attorney Todd D. Greenberg obtained an acquittal of a serious assault charge for his client which would have resulted in a mandatory minimum state prison time of three and one half years to a maximum of fifteen years if found guilty. The Defendant and complainant were at a bar and had an argument over a card game. They tussled in the bar and, approximately one hour later, the Defendant was accused of hitting the complainant over the head with a bat in front of the complainant’s house. The Defendant was acquitted of the most serious charge and found guilty of a lesser assault which did not require a mandatory minimum jail term. At sentencing, citing the well prepared pre-sentence memorandum submitted by the defense, instead of the Defendant receiving three and one half years in prison, the Defendant was sentenced to 364 days in prison of which he will serve approximately 7 months. Significantly, Attorney Greenberg was able to persuade the Judge to sentence the Defendant to 364 days instead of one year which would affect the Defendant’s immigration status in the United States. Since the sentence is less than one year, the Defendant is not automatically deportable due to the conviction. Once again, knowledge of the Criminal Law and knowledge of the Immigration Laws helped Addabbo and Greenberg’s client avoid a lengthy prison sentence and deportation.

A thorough investigation of the facts of this case, along with knowledge of the law, saved this defendant from a Felony conviction for Driving While Intoxicated. The Defendant was arrested and charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under The Influence Of Alcohol as a Felony due to a prior Misdemeanor conviction for the same crime. He was arrested in front of his house, in his vehicle that was running, sleeping behind the wheel of his car. The defendant’s prior attorney urged the defendant to plead guilty to Felony D.W.I. because “once you are caught behind the wheel and the car is running, you are automatically guilty of operating the vehicle”. When Attorney Todd D. Greenberg heard this advice, he practically fell off his chair. The defendant advised Mr. Greenberg that he was cementing the sidewalk in the front of his house, when, after the day’s work was done, he took some beers, sat in his car in front of his house and started the car so he could listen to music. The law in New York is not, as the prior attorney said, that “if the car is running you are automatically operating it”. The law specifically states that the courts must look at the “intent” of the defendant as to whether or not he intended to drive the vehicle. In this case, the “intent” of the defendant was just to simply hang out in his car and not move it. These facts were established by a thorough investigation of the defendant’s neighbors, pictures of the defendant’s house and testimony from family members who clearly stated that the defendant worked all day on cementing his sidewalk and then relaxed in his car after the job. Upon presentation of the facts of this case to the District Attorney, all charges were dismissed on June 21 st, 2010. Instead of having a Felony Conviction, due to the experience and expertise of Attorney Todd D. Greenberg in this area, all charges have been dismissed and sealed.

In a major legal victory in Federal court in Buffalo, Attorney Todd D. Greenberg, Esq., along with Buffalo Attorney Mark J. Mahoney, Esq., who represented a Co-defendant, obtained suppression of evidence found in a search of Mr. Greenberg’s client’s home, including pictures of Nike sneakers, financial records and approximately $450,000 in cash. Addabbo and Greenberg’s client was charged, along with 22 other alleged co-conspirators, with Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods and Conspiracy. The Indictment alleged that the Conspiracy involved a violation of Nike, Inc. trademarks. It was alleged that Addabbo & Greenberg‘s client, with others, “…devised and engaged in a criminal scheme to traffic in millions of dollars of footwear bearing counterfeit Nike marks.” An arrest warrant was issued from the Federal Court in Buffalo and our client was arrested in his home in Flushing. During the search, Federal agents recovered photos of Nike sneakers, financial records and $450,000 in cash. The Government argued that the seizure was lawful under the “plain view” doctrine, which states, in substance, that if the police are lawfully in a position from which they view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers have a lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant. After extensive pretrial hearings in Buffalo, the court found, as argued by Attorney Todd. D. Greenberg, Esq., that the agents had no reason to be in those portions of the apartment from which the items were seized because they arrested the defendant at his doorway. Further, with regard to the “plain view” argument by the Government, the Court noted that this alleged “plain view” seizure, where the incriminating nature of the items must be “immediately apparent”, took two hours, as established during Mr. Greenberg’s cross examination of the Federal Agent. Under such circumstances, the Government could not sustain its burden of establishing that the incriminating nature of the items were “immediately apparent”. It should be noted that 18 of the other defendants pleaded guilty and now, after the granting of this suppression motion, Mr. Greenberg’s client stands a good chance of a dismissal of the case. (Note: This decision was rendered by a Magistrate-Judge and must be confirmed by The District Court Judge.; Mr. Greenberg was joined on The Brief by Jonathan Edelstein, Esq.)

The Defendant, a college student who recently received an Honorable Discharge from the Army, was at a gathering on April 15, 2010 in the home of a female friend with approximately ten other young persons in New York City. After several drinks, one of the women began to act in a very seductive manner towards the Defendant. After proceeding to a bedroom, the Defendant and woman began kissing and hugging when the woman did not want to go any further and the Defendant stopped his advances. Nevertheless, the woman reported an Attempted Rape and Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, extremely serious offenses. After his arrest, the Defendant retained Addabbo & Greenberg where an immediate investigation ensued. Every person at the party was spoken to, videos from cell phones were obtained and it was determined that the woman, falsely reported a crime to conceal her actions from her boyfriend who arrived at the party at approximately 2:30 a.m. The hard work of Attorneys Todd D. Greenberg resulted in obtaining actual videos from cell phones of the woman’s seductive and obviously drunk behavior. Upon presentation of these facts to the District Attorney’s office of New York County, the District Attorney did a full investigation, and, using the information provided by Addabbo & Greenberg, dismissed this serious Felony case. Further, a request was made of the District Attorney’s office to commence a prosecution against the woman for falsely reporting an incident. The hard work and early investigation of these serious charges by the attorneys of Addabbo & Greenberg resulted in a Dismissal of all charges.

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.