A New York Family Lawyer said a woman filed an action for various forms of relief. In arriving at the instant decision, the court received and considered the woman’s motion with exhibits, the complainant’s affirmation in opposition with exhibits and the woman’s reply confirmation.
The complainant permitted to an in camera review by the court of the minutes of the grand jury proceeding and have provided a copy of the minutes and the grand jury exhibits to the court for review. The complainant provided the woman with a response to the requests for discovery, bill of particular materials and consent to hearings. The complaint also opposes the motion in all other respects.
The court also examined the minutes of the grand jury presentation, and it is the decision of the court if the evidence presented is legally sufficient to support the charges. Moreover, a New York Custody Lawyer said the grand jury was adequately instructed on the law and the proceeding.
In arriving at the decision, the court finds that release of the minutes to the woman is not necessary to assist the court in making its decision on the motion. The court subsequently declines to order release of the grand jury minutes to the woman, except for some portions.
The woman also requests to the court for the direct release of the grand jury statement of any witness who testified as a forensic toxicologist, as well as that of any accident reconstruction witness. A Bronx Family Lawyer said the woman contends that the testimony of an expert on either of the two topics is a report within the meaning of the law. But, the complainant opposes the request on the ground that the minutes are not a report as contemplated by the law.
While the court observes that the requested testimony does not fit efficiently within the definition of a written report, the court finds under the unique conditions of the instant case the primary justice which requires that the defense be provided with a copy of the requested minutes.
A Brooklyn Family Lawyer said the court also agrees with the woman that counts four and six must be dismissed as time-barred. Based on records, the two counts are both minor offenses within the meaning of law because both are a violation or a traffic infraction.
The complainant contend that the traffic infractions are not time-barred since they are alleged to be part of the same transaction or occurrence as the higher grade counts in the charges which are not time-barred. The complainant also offered no authority for the position and the court is not aware of any.
Even if the argument may have merit and if the woman sought dismissal on the action, the argument is unavailing where the charges are barred by the statute of limitations.
The woman argues that she cannot be charged with the endangering the welfare of a child because the said directives does not apply to unborn fetuses. Also, the woman argues that although the homicide encompasses an unborn child that has progressed past twenty four weeks in utero, the endangering the welfare of a child law contains no similar language, rendering it inapplicable to unborn fetuses.
In the court’s view, a simple interpretation of the endangering the welfare of a child law makes clear that it does not apply to unborn children. The complainant has not cited any case law which upholds a prosecution for endangering the welfare of a child involving an unborn child and the court is not aware of any.
Consequently, the court is not giving the verdict on any potential chain of custody or foundational evidentiary dispute which the woman may have prior to admission of the hospital blood evidence at trial.
When you and your partner decide to end your relationship and you want to win your child’s sole custody, you can ask the legal assistance of the Suffolk County Family Attorney or Suffolk County Child Custody Lawyer. If you want to contest your child’s alimony, you can ask the Suffolk County Child Support Attorneys at Stephen Bilkis and Associates for legal representation.