Criminal Hearings to Determine if a Search is Reasonable
The fourth amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….” In recent times these principles have had real life consequences on New Yorkers with regard to issues such as the controversial “Stop and Frisk” policy of the NYPD, and arbitrary traffic stops that sometimes result in arrests for driving while intoxicated or drug offenses. There are three main types of criminal hearings in the New York Courts that are held to determine the reasonableness of police search and seizures that relate to these fourth amendment principles. These criminal hearings respectively are; Mapp, Huntley, and Dunaway hearings.
A Mapp Hearing deals with the admissibility of physical evidence obtained by the police as a result of an illegal search.
Huntley Hearings are held to determine if a defendant’s statements to police were made voluntarily and not coerced. If they are found to have been coerced then under the Huntley rule they will not be admissible as evidence.
A Dunaway hearing is held to determine whether evidence was obtained by police as the result of an arrest made where police lacked probable cause to make the arrest in the first place. If it is determined that police lacked probable cause to initiate an arrest any subsequent statements or evidence obtained by police as the result of the arrest will be held inadmissible in court.
Criminal Defense Attorney
Retaining an attorney that understands the nuances of these hearings and how to challenge the accuracy and veracity of evidence in court can and will make all the difference in your case. When you or a loved one are facing criminal charges, you need someone fighting on your side. Call the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at 516-858-2620 to speak to an experienced criminal defense attorney.
This article is intended to give some insight into some interesting New York caselaw with regards to premises liability.
Eischelbaum v. Douglas Elliman, LLC, 52 AD3d 210 – a real estate broker does not possess the required level of control over a property they are showing to be held liable for dangerous conditions on the property.
Johnson v. City of New York, 7 A.D.3d 577 – when a property manager is furnished with violent crime statistics by housing authority police, a question of fact exists as to forseeability of crime and the need for security.
Singh v. United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, Inc., 72 AD3d 272 – where there is no exclusive service agreement for malfunctioning automatic elevator door for the premises, an issue of fact exists as to exclusive control and where premises liability lies.
These are a few of the issues that arise with premises liability actions in New York. And the fact of the matter is that this type of personal injury action is very complex. But, it is important to grasp premises liability concepts because not knowing where liability lies, can cost you a very lucrative award for injuries that are sustained at the premises.
The standard of care is that a landlord or property owner has a duty to maintain the property in a reasonably safe manner. Other factors that arise in these cases are the duty to warn, relationship of plaintiff to the property (tenant, licensee, etc.), forseeability, dangerous conditions, defects in design or construction and actual and constructive notice.
Personal Injury Attorneys
If you or someone you know has been injured on a piece of property owned by another person, call the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at (516) 858-2620 to speak to a personal injury attorney.
Nassau County Foreclosure Defense
Nassau County Foreclosure Defense cases have several steps. Knowing the procedure of the foreclosure case can dictate which steps should be taken at any particular moment throughout the course of the litigation. The following is a quick summary of the options that may be available in a Nassau County Foreclosure Defense case after the summons and complaint have been served on the home owner.
Gathering information necessary to the defense of the action is probably the most overlooked and underrated step that both pro-se litigants and attorneys make in defending foreclosures. Simple research such as ordering a foreclosure search should be part of the due diligence undertaken prior to litigating. Other methods such as discovery devices can be used to gather additional information during the pendency of the foreclosure litigation.
Responsive pleadings including affirmative defenses and counterclaims where applicable should be filed in a timely fashion. Responsive pleadings in foreclosure actions will often depend greatly on the information gathered about the property and circumstances surrounding the loan origination and servicing.
Motion practice can be used as part of a foreclosure defense strategy. Motions can accomplish several goals that can be of great importance to the preservation of the home owners rights.
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy should also be discussed as part of a comprehensive foreclosure defense strategy. Deciding on the appropriate time for filing of a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy to aid in a foreclosure defense will depend on a myriad of factors. Some cases dictate that a Chapter 7 should be filed prior to responsive pleadings. Some cases dictate that Chapter 7 should be filed after settlement conference negotiations have broken down. Other cases dictate that Chapter 7 will be of no use to a home owner in foreclosure.
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy is an extremely useful tool for foreclosure defense planning. Chapter 13 filings are often times more effective earlier in the process for certain logistical reasons. If the default in mortgage payments were in the not to distant past, the use of Chapter 13 is more likely to be successful.
Federal loss mitigation applications should be considered when weighing bankruptcy options. For its brief existence, this program seems to be very successful and worth the effort to apply.
Please understand that loan modification applications should be submitted in completed form as quickly as possible to initiate loss mitigation negotiations. This is not separate from any of the options listed herein for foreclosure defense, but rather as a supplement. As always, case specific facts will determine which options each individual will proceed with after detailed discussions with an attorney.
Foreclosure Defense Attorney in Nassau County
If you or someone you are concerned about are facing foreclosure, call the Law Firm of Vaughn, Weber & Prakope, PLLC at 516-858-2620 today. Remember, successful litigation is no accident.