Folks that receive “appearance ticket” may come to the part of the criminal court (e.g. part AR2 in Queens) where Judicial Hearing Officer (JHO), rather than the Criminal Court Judge will be presiding. Court personnel would ask one to fill out consent to adjudication before a judicial hearing officer, such as Form CRC 3063-4. Procedure and laws are the same as in other parts before judge, but pace is a bit faster. Court attorneys, who assist judge, are very helpful in suggesting how to proceed, because of their regular presence in the courtroom before that judge. Sometimes, however, the outcome before JHO may not be desirable for defendant. For example, defendant may prefer to engage in the plea bargaining with assistant district attorney (ADA), who is probably not present in JHO’s courtroom, but is present in criminal judge’s courtroom. This designed JHO-Judge system allows flexibility for defendant to present its case to JHO, but also to ask JHO for a transfer to criminal judge for hearing (e.g. part AP2 in Queens). This should be a great news for the defendant who is in a tough spot and would like to explore plea bargaining possibilities before the trial with ADA.
New York Supreme Court in Brooklyn considered the legality of practice by NYC Department of Corrections continued detention of defendants – based on a civil immigration detainer – notwithstanding the fact that defendant could be released for criminal charges. People Ex Rel. Swenson v. Ponte, 2014 NY Slip Op 24304 (Oct. 15, 2014). Interpreting law (8 U.S.C. § 1357(d)) and regulation (8 C.F.R. § 287.7) governing the use of immigration detainers, the Court concluded that the local law enforcement agency is not required to detain anyone. Court cited NYC Administrative Code § 9-131 (“The department shall not honor a civil immigration detainer by: holding an individual beyond the time when such individual would otherwise be released from the department’s custody, except for such reasonable time as is necessary to conduct the search specified in paragraph two . . .”). Acknowledging that NYC Administrative Code can give way (be preempted) by State and Federal laws, the Court went further to the Supreme Law of the Land. Citing Fourth Amendment, Court began looking for probable cause. Court found no probable cause to exist because (1) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) removal order; (2) DHS’ reason to believe that a person is subject to removal;…
New York City stands out from the rest of the country for its friendlier laws towards working people (i.e. those whose living depends on salaries and wages they receive in exchange labor). New Yorkers have NYC Commission on Human Rights that stands on guard and protects them against discrimination in employment based, among other things, on disability. If employee who is living in New York City suffers from disability, then his or her employer must provide a reasonable accommodation (i.e. accommodation that does not overly burden the employer) to that person. NYC Hum. R. L. § 8-102(18) (defining “reasonable accommodation”); NYC Hum. R. L. § 8-107(15) (requiring reasonable accommodation to the needs of person with disabilities). But what happens if your family or loved one becomes disabled such that you need to care for him or her? Care requires both time and financial resources. Income becomes more important and time to make that income becomes more scarce. Need to care for your disabled friend may mean tardiness to work, early leaving, and increased absenteeism. Employee with disabled friend frustrates the employer – usually a rational corporate entity – with focus on efficiency and profits. “Naturally,” employer will look for…
Read More NYC Human Rights Commission Opposes to Disability Protections By Association
An interesting practice by some of insurance industry members came to the attention of our office. Affordable Care Act (also known as “Obamacare”) includes a provision, under § 1341 (see pp. 226-227), which mandates “insurance issuers, and third party administrators” to pay fees for a project called Transitional Reinsurance Program. The fee is determined by the Department of Health and Human Services and is set to be $63 for 2014. See 78 Fed. Reg. 15,410, 15460 (March 11, 2013). While Congress specified the parties who pay the transitional reinsurance fee – insurance issuers, and third party administrators – the ambiguity still remains as to whether the insurance issuers, and third party administrators can shift that fee on others (as opposed to coming up with the funds from their own corporate coffers and bringing less value to their shareholders). A letter addressed by one such member of insurance business community suggests that fee shifting is an option. Below is a partial reproduction of the letter (with specific identities being redacted): 2014 Affordable Care Act (ACA) Fee Notice Dear Jane Doe, As part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) new fees will impact you beginning January 1, 2014. These new fees are…
Read More Affordable Care Act’s Transitional Reinsurance Program Fees: Who Pays?
NYCLA’s Criminal Justice Section had an interesting presentation about bail system in the New York City on December 8, 2011. According to one of the panelist, Mary Phillips, the monetary bail requirement does have a statistically significant effect on the defendants, making certain that they return to court for further proceedings. The monetary amount of bail, however, has a lesser significance. Mary Phillips report is available here. Additionally, it was noted at the meeting, that only two of nine authorized type of bonds are commonly used: cash and insurance company bond. One of the suggested reasons was the lack of judicial and administrative familiarity of personnel with other types of bonds. The nine types of bonds (see N.Y. CPL. LAW § 520.10.) are: (a) Cash bail. (b) An insurance company bail bond (c) A secured surety bond. (d) A secured appearance bond. (e) A partially secured surety bond. (f) A partially secured appearance bond. (g) An unsecured surety bond. (h) An unsecured appearance bond. (i) Credit card. Other useful things to keep in mind when filing application or arguing a bond amount are: Purpose and the criteria of the bond. N.Y. CPL. LAW § 510.30. As well as, inability to…
