New York Criminal Lawyer Blawg

Child Care Expenses

In New York State the Family Court as part of a basic child support Order can also set certain add on expenses. One of those expenses is for child care costs such as daycare.

Recently, in the Westchester County Family Court, David Sachs, Esq. successfully had the mother's (custodial parent) violation petition for arrears due for child care expenses dismissed. The mother was claiming that she incurred various child care expenses and that the father (noncustodial parent) refused to pay those expenses. Attorney Davis Sachs argued several points as to why the expenses were not appropriate but when lawyer David Sachs caught the mother lying on the witness stand the Support Magistrate in the Westchetser County Family Court dismissed the case.

In this case, the mother claimed to have child care expenses while she was at work and need to pay a relative to care for the child. The mother provided to the Westchester County Family Court a calendar which outlined all the the days that she was required to work and needed child care. Attorney Davis Sachs decided to subpoena the mother's work records from her employer setting forth the days the mother actually worked.

Based upon the evidence in the Westchester County Family Court the mother was billing the father for child care expenses on dates she claimed she worked when the employment records showed she was actually out sick.

The Westchester County Family Court called the mother's claim for child care expenses to be a blatant misrepresentation and found the mother less than credible.

Legal Strategy

Here Attorney David Sachs knew that in order to defeat the mother's claims for child care expenses it was necessary to subpoena her employment records. When the mother testified in contrast to the actual employment records her credibility for child care expenses was destroyed.

Search and Seizure

As criminal defense attorneys in White Plains, New York our office is fortunate to practice criminal law in Westchester, Orange and the surrounding counties. Doing so there is a wide practice by police departments and courts regarding search and seizure and suppression. This criminal law blog provides a basic update on new search and seizure laws in New York.

One of the most important aspects of criminal defense law is moving to suppressing illegally obtained evidence from an accused. If an accused 4th Amendment rights were violated suppression will result and in many instances the prosecutions entire case will fail.

The top criminal defense attorneys in New York will review any case in which evidence is seized for potential suppression. This includes weapons, drugs, urine or blood samples or any other evidence of a crime.

Search and Seizure comes in many different forms. A search of a person, car, house, office, business, bags or even garbage. It is important to know the search and seizure law in New York as it pertains to each of the above examples as every factual situation is different. Below are some examples of recent search and seizure case law in New York.

Automobiles

In People v Omowale, 83 AD3d 614, the Court held that evidence should have been suppressed when the defendant was arrested in 2007 after officers approached him for double parking, where the defnedant did not offer the driver's license of another person to the police as his own or impersonate anyone. While it is likely the defendant considered passing off the license he was holding as his, holding it in his hand did not constitute a punishabkle attempt to commit criminal impersonation.

Search of Backpack

In People v Evans, 922 NYS2d 403 it was held that the court shouyld not have denyed a criminal defense motion to supress beacuse there was no proff of exigent circumstances that would justify the warrantless search of the defendant's closed backpack. There was no emergency circumstances where the defendant and two others were arrested for smoking marijuana in plain view and they were all in handcuffs and surrounded by police officers and a 12 foot high fence when the officers decided to search the backpack. There was no evidence that the officers feared for thier safetyduring the arrest of that the defendantor his freienbds acted in an aggressive or hostile manner nor did the officer's think there was any contraband in the backpack. Lastly, there was no evidence that the defendant could have gottent o the backpack to destroy evidence.

Search of Abandoned Objects

In People v Harris, 83 AD3d 1220, the court held that when the defendant deposited trash in the closed dumpster of a private apartment complex where he lived for removal by a private hauling company rather than putting it on the street for removal by a public garbage department there is no distinction between the two. There is no expectation of privacy in trash left in a public space for removal by a third party. Trash disposed of in a communal place where others can access it with the understanding that it will be removed by a third party is deemed abandoned.

Search Warrants

In People v Gavazzi, 921 NYS2d 742 the court found a search warrant to be invalid where on the warrant the wrong court was listed, it ws illegibly signed and contained no other information by the issuing court it failed to comply with the requirements of the Penal Law.

In the criminal defense if seized property the criminal defense attorney need to review all of the surrounding facts and if necessary prepare a suppression motion. The fine details of the case are very import to the court in determining suppression.