New York Criminal Lawyer Blawg

Beginning a Divorce to Avoid Child Support Enforcement

Under New York State law, when a party enters into a stipulation in a divorce or matrimonial action regarding child support and that party wishes to modify the child support order, the party must demonstrate an unreasonable or unanticipated change in circumstance. Moreover, New York state child support enforcement law requires that a party for a downward modification for child support show that his or her change in circumstances is substantial.

So in other words, in order to avoid potential New York State child support enforcement against a party, that party under New York State child support law, must draft a divorce or matrimonial agreement very carefully.

At Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP, we have experience drafting such agreements to avoid litigation regarding unanticipated or unforseen circumstances. We can handle issues to lower child support and avoid New York State child support enforcement for clients. Under New York law, child support is handled using a child support calculator and it usually involves a percentage of the income of the parent who does not have child custody. We also handles such cases on behalf of clients to increase child support under New York law.

When an individual suffers a personal injury as a result of the actions of an animal, most commonly those cases involving dog bites,W

it is often believed that the injured person may not recover from the dog's owner if the dog has never bitten anyone before. This misconception is often referred to as the "one free bite" rule. Under New York State law, there is no such rule. The standard is not whether or not the dog has bitten previously, what is required is that the dog, or any other animal, exhibits a "vicious propensity" that the owner knew or should have known.

The attorneys at Riebling, Proto & Sachs, LLP are personal injury lawyers in New York who utilize these important aspects of the law to maximize the recovery for their clients.

New York Courts have defined a vicious or dangerous propensity to mean a natural inclination or habitual tendency to act in a manner that might endanger the person or property of others, Collier v Zambito, 1 NY3d 444, 775 NYS2d 205, 807 NE2d 254; Dickson v McCoy, 39 NY 400; Wheaton v Guthrie, 898 AD2d 809, 453 NYS2d 480; Lagoda v Dorr, 28 AD2d 208, 284 NYS 2d 130; Shuffian v Garfola, 9 AD2d 910, 195 NYS 2d 45; see Mirabella v Thiem, 306 NY 650, 116 NE2d 492, and Webster's International Dictionary.

As previously mentioned:

"a vicious propensity is not limited to a bite or other attack, but 'includes a propensity to act in a manner that may endanger the safety of another, whether playful or not." (Provorse v Curtis, 288 AD2d 832 [decided herewith]; see, Mitura v Roy, 174 AD2d 1020; see also, Anderson v Carduner, 279 AD2d 369, 369-370)."Marquardt v Milewski, 288 AD2d 928, 732 NYS2d 801.

Any 'known tendency to attack others, even in playfulness, as in the case of the overly friendly large dog with a propensity for enthusiastic jumping up on visitors, will be enough to make the defendant liable for damages resulting from such an act.' (Thirlwall v Galanter, 66 Misc 2d 88, 90 [Sandler, J.], quoting Prosser, Torts, at 515 [3d ed.]; see also, Mitura v Roy, Anderson v Carduner 279 AD2d 369

In the Supreme Court, Westchester County, located in White Plains, New York, personal injury trial attorney Stephen Riebling successfully litigated and settled just such a case on behalf of his injured client.

In that case, the client suffered a significant personal injury to her nose and face when a dog owned by an acquaintance jumped up at the client.

When the dog jumped, its mouth and teeth smashed into the client's face resulting in serious injuries that required multiple surgeries. The owners of the dog defended the case by claiming that their dog had never bitten anyone before and was just a large friendly dog.

Attorney Riebling successfully demonstrated at trial that the dog had the requisite "vicious propensity" even though the dog had never bitten anyone before. Instead of arguing that the injury resulted from a dog bite, Attorney Riebling argued that the client's injuries resulted from the dog's natural inclination to jump up onto people. It was further shown that the owner's were aware of the dog's habit to jump and had acted to guard against the dog jumping onto people before this incident occurred. As compensation for her personal injuries, Attorney Riebling's client accepted a mid-six figure settlement offer at trial.

*****

If you or someone you know has been injured and needs a personal injury attorney, please contact Stephen Riebling or any member of the firm for a free consultation. The firm's personal injury attorneys regularly appear in all the courts of New York: Westchester, Bronx, Rockland, Putman, Dutchess and Orange Counties.

As a criminal defense attorney in New York, one of the best ways to challenge the prosecution's case is to make a motion to dismiss the criminal charges.

In every criminal case an attorney may make a motion to dismiss for a variety of reasons. Sometimes these motions are not necessary but they can also be a very powerful tool for the experienced criminal defense lawyer.

In the Yorktown Justice Court, Attorney David Sachs, had all the charges dismissed against a Jefferson Valley client of the firm. The client was cleared of five misdemeanor counts of falsely reporting an incident. The case stemmed from a series of allegations made against parents whose children played in the town's youth soccer program. The reports came via a telephone line run by the State Office of Children and Family Services and claimed that the parents had mistreated their children. Westchester County CPS investigated the claims and determined that they were unfounded.

The Police attempted to link the client to the false reports and the prosecution filed criminal charges.

The client with a prior attorney was encouraged to take a plea deal, but, luckily for the client, David Sachs was hired as his new lawyer. Mr. Sachs analyzed the case and was successful in his motion to dismiss all five counts.

In order to protect your rights every aspect of a case needs to be analyzed. Pretrial motions in any local criminal court may be successful in dismissing a criminal case.

*****

If you would like to have your criminal matter reviewed by David Sachs or any member of the firm feel free to contact us for a free consultation. The firm regularly appears in all courts in Westchester, Bronx, Rockland, Putman, Dutchess and Orange Counties on many types of criminal defense. David Sachs is also a former Assistant District Attorney.

As a criminal defense trial attorney my clients are always asking me "when can the police search my car?" The are several answers to that question but when looking at it from a traffic infraction only point of view the rules are very specific.

A traffic infraction is any noncriminal ticket.

A traffic ticket is sometimes called a Uniform Traffic Ticket (UTT) or a Simplified Information. Those terms are common in Westchester, The Bronx, Orange and Rockland Counties although the paperwork may look different. UTTs are most commonly issued for speeding, running a stop sign, failure to signal, illegal turn, no headlights and many others.

An infraction is noncriminal as opposed to a suspended license (VTL 511) or DWI/DWAI (VTL 1192.2/3). Those are misdemeanors or even felonies.

When a vehicle is stopped for a traffic infraction a police officer is NOT allowed to search the vehicle without some additional grounds for believing that a crime has been committed (People v Marsh, 20 NY2d 98). The police may order a driver stopped for a traffic infraction out of a vehicle, but without some other probable cause the police can not search the vehicle.

An example is if a police officer stopped a vehicle because the driver was not wearing his seatbelt (traffic infraction). The police can check to see if the driver is properly licensed and the vehicle is properly registered/insured, but without more can not search the car. The problem is that the police are always looking for criminal activity and if contraband such as a gun or drugs are in plain view that is a basis alone to search the entire vehicle. Even if the officer smells marijuana they may be allowed to search the vehicle (People v Hanson 5 Misc.3d 67).

Most major arrests stem from simple traffic infraction stops. As a trial and traffic viloation attorney in New York, I want to make sure your protected by understanding your rights.

In any criminal case the rules of evidence apply. In order to be found guilty the prosecutor must present admissible evidence of your guilt. Any failure to present admissible evidence could prevent the prosecution from proving an element of the crime. In many DWI or driving while ability impaired (DWAI) cases, urine or blood tests are taken and need to be admitted in order for the prosecution to prove intoxication accroding to DWI laws in New York State.

In order for urine (blood) test to be admitted at trial, prosecutors must present testimony from the lab technicians who preformed the tests.

In People v Levy, 2008 NY Slip Op 51878(U), the prosecution presented testimony from the police officers who handled the sample before it was mailed to an out of state lab for testing, the lab employee who received the sample and placed a portion of it into test tubes, and a supervisor from the lab testified. The lab supervisor testified about the normal procedures the lab follows when it receives and tests a urine sample, and he determined, after reviewing the lab's 300 page litigation package that tests were preformed on the defendant's sample.

The court concluded that the results of the DWI urine tests were NOT admissible.

The prosecution failed to present testimony regarding the chain of custody for the test tube samples. A witness was needed with personal knowledge about the tests preformed. The Court also refused to admit the lab's litigation package under the business exception rule.

This summer I successfully defended a DWI blood reading of .24 in White Plains. I was able to have the blood results suppressed on a similar basis as above.

In my case the prosecution failed to present evidence that a physician or someone under a physician's supervision drew the blood.

The White Plains Court also refused to admit evidence of the blood sample results under the business exception rule in that ruling that live testimony is needed. The result was a not guilty jury verdict.