'Lingerer' Asks NYC Court to Drop Case
Lawyer Blogs
[##_1L|1007959721.jpg|width="130" height="130" alt=""|_##]Standing around to chat on a busy Manhattan street can certainly create an inconvenience for other pedestrians. But is it illegal? A man arrested after a confab with friends in Times Square has asked the state's highest court to dismiss the case. The Court of Appeals heard arguments in Albany Wednesday and could rule next month. Matthew Jones was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest — by flailing his arms — on June 12, 2004. Police said other people "had to walk around" him, and he wouldn't move when asked.
The Brooklyn man pleaded guilty to a violation after spending a night in jail, but he later appealed. Courts have upheld his arrest so far.
His lawyer, Nancy E. Little, said Wednesday there was no legal justification for arresting Jones for simply standing on the street.
"You need something more," she said. "You need to be being verbally abusive, or really blocking lots of people, or lying down on the sidewalk."
But assistant Manhattan district attorney Paula Rose-Stark said the disorderly conduct arrest was warranted, noting that Jones' behavior stood out "amid the inevitable hustle and bustle of Times Square."
Prosecutors' arguments drew several questions Wednesday from judges — including Chief Judge Judith Kaye, who wondered aloud how bustling Times Square was when Jones was arrested around 2 a.m.
Related listings
-
Court Review Slows Number of Executions
Lawyer Blogs 10/18/2007[##_1L|1213042615.jpg|width="131" height="91" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court's decision to review the constitutionality of lethal injection procedures has slowed the annual number of executions to the lowest level in a decade amid renewed concerns abou...
-
Supreme Court Pursues Microsoft, Best Buy Case
Lawyer Blogs 10/17/2007[##_1L|1382086187.jpg|width="131" height="91" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court Monday rejected an appeal in the racketeering case against Microsoft and Best Buy that alleges consumers had MSN accounts activated and were charged for them without their kno...
-
House Democrats split on Armenian 'genocide' bill
Lawyer Blogs 10/17/2007[##_1L|1367073907.jpg|width="140" height="135" alt=""|_##]A House vote on whether to label as genocide the killings of 1.5 million Armenians by what is now Turkey -- a resolution that deeply offended that key U.S. ally -- could be delayed as Democrat...
Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.
Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.
Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:
• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements
For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.