Civil Rights Case Eventually Leads to Justice

On October 24, 2014, in Criminal, Litigation, by John A. Weber IV, ESQ.

deskovic24n-2-web (photo from nydailynews.com)

 

New York Daily News writer Stephen Rex Brown (October 23, 2014 edition) told the story of Jeff Deskovic and the incredible award he obtained.  It was the largest verdict in U.S. history at $41.6 million.  Mr. Deskovic was convicted of rape in 1991.  In 2006, DNA led to the arrest and confession of the actual rapist and Deskovic’s name was cleared.  This case represents an extreme Civil Rights violation.  Most Abuse of Process, Malicious Prosecution, False Arrest or any other Civil Rights violation will rarely ever rise to this level of injustice.   That is why Mr. Deskovic was awarded such an extraordinary amount of money.

If you feel that your rights have been violated, even to a much lesser extent than Mr. Deskovic, you should seek the assistance of an attorney to discuss your options.  Call The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC at (516) 858-2620 to speak to a Civil Rights attorney!

Share:

Important Distinction in Civil Rights Cases

On October 23, 2014, in Criminal, Litigation, by John A. Weber IV, ESQ.

The Court in Burbar v. Inc. Vill. of Garden City,961 F. Supp. 2d 462,2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117029,2013 WL 4427810(E.D.N.Y.2013) made a very important distinction when deciding the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.  After analyzing the facts of the case, the Court decided that probable cause to make an arrest does not automatically extend to support commencement of criminal proceedings.  The key facts giving rise to this opinion was that the possession of firearms along with witness complaints may give police probable cause for an arrest.  After it is discovered that the firearms are licensed, the criminal charges were not warranted.

An important note to make here is that abuse of process claims do not always coincide with malicious prosecution claims.  It is true that these claims are very often plead together in Civil Rights Actions.  This case however is an example where an abuse of process claim will not be successful although a malicious prosecution claim may be.  Intricacies in the law like these make it important for those people who feel their civil rights have been violated to consult an attorney.  Don’t be deterred by the possible presence of probable cause for the arrest.  The underlying facts could give rise to a host of issues with the actions of the police.

If you have questions about possible Civil Rights Violations, call The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC  at (516) 858-2620 to speak with an attorney today!

Share:

Familial Exception to Eviction

On October 22, 2014, in Landlord-Tenant, by John A. Weber IV, ESQ.
A very interesting decision was issued by Judge Eric Bjorneby, J.D.C. in Kakwani v Kakwani,40 Misc. 3d 627,967 N.Y.S.2d 827,2013 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2555,2013 NY Slip Op 23200,2013 WL 3155372(N.Y. Dist. Ct.2013).  This eviction action centered on the issue of whether a family member can be evicted in summary proceedings in New York.  A very detailed analysis which covered the development of the familial exception rule in New York was set forth.  The facts in these cases will determine whether the familial exception applies.  The only available option for evicting those covered under the exception is through ejectment actions.
As always, if you are in the unfortunate situation of being involved in an eviction action with a family member, please call The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC at (516) 858-2613 to speak with an experienced Landlord Tenant attorney today!
Share:

Interesting Legal Procedure Decision

On October 21, 2014, in Landlord-Tenant, Litigation, Personal Injury, by John A. Weber IV, ESQ.

countycourt2

 

Legal Procedure Decision

In Roseman v. Baranowski, 2014 NY Slip Op. 05635, the Second Department allowed Plaintiff leave to amend the summons and complaint in order to add a doctor as a defendant after EBT’s (depositions) were conducted.  Plaintiff’s reason to add the doctor was that the doctor was “united in interest” with the original Defendants.  The Court focused on the fact that the doctor being added either knew or should have known that he should have been included in the original action.  More specifically, using the relation back doctrine, the Court considered if the new Defendant had notice within the applicable statute of limitations period.  Hospital records listing work performed by new Defendant were used as proof of the new Defendant’s notice.

This case illustrates the importance of correctly bringing an action against all parties in interest.  Failure to include a party can be detrimental or fatal to your case.

As always, if you have questions regarding the commencement of an action, call The Law Firm of Vaughn & Weber, PLLC at (516) 858-2620 to speak with a Litigation Attorney today!

Share:
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is Attorney Advertising. It does not form an attorney-client relationship. We are a debt relief agency and a law firm that helps people file for bankruptcy relief under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code – Title 11. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Proudly assisting residents of Long Island, Nassau county, Suffolk county, New York City, Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx, Staten Island, Manhattan