Criminal Defense Special Litigation Docket

No 1
Title: Kelton Davis et al. v. The City of New York et al.
Docket No./ Court: 10 Civ. 0699 (SAS) Southern District of New York
LAS Attys/Offices: Rosenbloom, Wasserman, Bodden, Gibney
Other Counsel: NAACP LDF, Paul Weiss
Date Filed: January 2010
Class Action: Yes
Nature of Claims: The case challenges illegal stops and arrests for trespass on NYC Housing Authority property.
Current Status: Pending, discovery, Summary Judgment Motions
Next Action Planned: Prepare summary judgment defense
Other Counsel:
No 2
Title: People v. Jorge Pagan
Docket No./ Court: Bronx Ind. 1656/06, Court of Appeals
LAS Attys/Offices: Wasserman
Date Filed: January 2009
Class Action: No
Nature of Claims: Can a sentencing court impose a probation condition of a home search months after the initial sentence was imposed absent a new cause for the imposition of the condition?
Current Status: Pending
Next Action Planned: Await decision
No 3
Title: People v. Liden
Docket No./ Court: Court of Appeals
LAS Attys/Offices: Newman
Date Filed: 2009
Class Action: No
Nature of Claims: Can a sex offender designation be argued on direct appeal of the criminal case? Can a level 3 designation be supported by unsworn allegations from another state?
Current Status: Pending
Next Action Planned: Awaiting decision
No 4
Title: Liden v. Devane
Docket No./ Court: First Dept.
LAS Attys/Offices: Newman
Date Filed: 2009
Class Action: No
Nature of Claims: Is an Article 78 Proceeding is timely where it is brought more than 4 months after the initial determination by the Board but within 4 months after the risk-level hearing court ruled that it could not consider the issue?
Current Status: Argued 1st Dept. April 2012
Next Action Planned: Awaiting decision
No 5
Title: Berlin v. Evans
Docket No./ Court: 113670/2010
LAS Attys/Offices: Newman
Date Filed: 2010
Class Action: No
Nature of Claims: Is the retroactive application of sex offender 1,000 feet from a school residency laws a violation of the ex post facto clause where they render an offender homeless?
Current Status: Argued 1st Dept. April 2012
Next Action Planned: Awaiting decision
No 6
Title: Matter of Mitchell v. NYD Dept of Correction
Docket No./ Court: 340221-10 First Department
LAS Attys/Offices: Barbara Hamilton
Date Filed: 2011
Class Action: No
Nature of Claims: Is the failure of a jail disciplinary hearing officer to assess the credibility of witness who testified on behalf of a prisoner a violation of due process or NYC regulations so as to require reversal of the finding of guilt?
Current Status: Favorable decision First Dept. April 2012
Next Action Planned: Waiting to see if DOC appeals favorable appellate decision
No 7
Title: People v. Keith Smith
Docket No./ Court: Ind. 4487/09 First Dept
LAS Attys/Offices: Wasserman
Date Filed: 2009
Class Action: No
Nature of Claims: Whether interception by Dept. of Correction and disclosure to District Attorney of represented prisoners' uncounseled telephone conversations violate Federal and State right to counsel. Recorded phone conversations were introduced at trial and the client was convicted.
Current Status: Pending Appeal
Next Action Planned: File brief
No 8
Title: Prince v. City of NY.
Docket No./ Court: Violation #040113140L First Dept.
LAS Attys/Offices: Wasserman
Date Filed: 2011
Nature of Claims: We recently lost this Article 78 proceeding that challenges a $2,000 fine and the taking of the client’s car for the offense of removing an old TV antenna from a curbside recycling pile. Petitioner is an artist who uses found items for his work. We claim the fine is excessive in violation of the 8th Amendment, due process and the abuse of the authority to fine and punish. We filed a Notice of Appeal
Current Status: Appeal pending
Next Action Planned: Draft Brief
No 9
Title: Bermudez v. NYC Department of Correction et al.
Docket No./ Court: Second Dept.
LAS Attys/Offices: Bodden
Date Filed: 2011
Class Action: No
Nature of Claims: Our client was denied a job at the NYC Department of Correction because he was arrested after the driver and owner of the car in which our client was a passenger bought fireworks. Our client's arrest was dismissed and sealed pursuant to an ACD. We represented the client in an appeal from DOC's denial of employment at a hearing before the NYC Civil Service Commission and the Commission found him qualified to be a Correction officer and ordered DOC to place him on the eligible exam list. DOC again denied our client the job and we commenced an Article 78 proceeding. The court has denied the application and we are appealing.
Current Status: Pending Appeal
Next Action Planned: Draft Brief
.