Lebedin Kofman LLP

Case Results

1) Cases Currently Handling:

2) Case Dismissed And Monetary Settlement From The City For Client:

3) Stopped All Rape Charges From Being Brought And Won NYU Hearing To Be Allowed To Stay In School:

4) All Rape Charges Dismissed:

5) All DWI Charges Dismissed On Third DWI With Accident And .18 Blow:

6) Currently Appealing:

7) Recent Appellate Wins In The Second Department:

8) Representation Of Raj American Liquors In Tax Fraud Case:

9) All Hate Crime Charges Dismissed After Trial:

10) Represented Kamal Joseph Reputed Leader Of The Queens EBK Bloods Gang In Attempted Murder, Witness Tampering , Witness Intimidation And Assault In The First Degree Cases:

11) Represented Akm Golam Hossain in Connection With $8 Million Dollar Bank Fraud Scheme in Southern District of NY Where He a Received a 7 Month Sentence, the Lowest Sentence of 14 Defendants:

12) Trial, Co-Counsel Representation of Frank LaCorte, Alleged Gambino Associate Accused of Homicide of NYPD Detective’s Brother:

13) Murder Trial Co-counsel:

14) People v C.C.

  • Defendant, a banker and MBA student, was arrested for domestic violence in NYC. His girlfriend called the police and alleged that he choked her and beat her about the face and body. She also alleged that Defendant had forcefully held her down and raped her the night before. Defendant was facing an indictment for rape and was charged with assault in the third degree PL 120.00(1), assault in the third degree PL 120.00(2), criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation PL 121.11(a), attempted assault in the first degree PL 110/120.00(1) and harassment in the second degree PL 240.26(1). Due to our aggressive investigation and world-class investigator, we were able to establish that the rape never occurred and convince the prosecutor to give Defendant an ACD with a limited order of protection. His case would be dismissed and sealed and fingerprints and mugshots destroyed.

15) People v. C.S.

  • Defendant charged with disorderly conduct, PL 240.20(3), for arguing with a bouncer and cursing at a police officer in front of a bar in Brooklyn. Case was on at 346 Broadway as Defendant received a pink summons. Defendant was in the investigatory phase of being accepted into the fire department as a firefighter and a conviction of even a violation would have had significant negative side-effects on his job potential. We appeared for Defendant in court and were able to convince the judge to dismiss the case outright.

16) People v. S.L.

  • Defendant, a pharmacist, was arrested in NYC for Grand Larceny in the Third Degree PL 155.35(1) and Forgery in the Third Degree PL 170.05 for allegedly altering the amounts on the checks written to her by her employer. The total loss alleged was over $11,000. During the investigation, it was discovered that the prosecutor never properly subpoenaed Defendant’s bank statements and we were able to negotiate a plea bargain to a violation for the Defendant which meant NO criminal record and NO jail time.

17) People v E.L.

  • Defendant pulled over driving in Richmond County by trooper for speeding, changing lanes without signaling and crossing solid white lines on highway.The stop was recorded on trooper’s dashboard camera. Defendant admitted to drinking several beers and had a half empty beer inside the vehicle. Defendant refused a breathalyzer and was arrested for Misdemeanor DWI and Driving while ability impaired. He had a class B CDL license and was this was his third DWI arrest–he was previously convicted of misdemeanor DWI in Kings County and Felony DWI in Richmond County. We won his chemical test refusal hearing at the DMV and his license was not suspended.Initially, the prosecutor was offering a plea to 6 months in jail and a misdemeanor DWI conviction. After several months, we were able to negotiate a plea to a VTL 1192.1 violation for driving while ability impaired for the defendant. This is a fantastic result as he received a lesser punishment and no criminal record on his third DWI case–a better result than even his first case. As well, this result saves his driver’s license because he will only face a 90 license suspension and will get his license back whereas based on the new DMV guidelines, if he would have pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor and his license was revoked, he would face a mandatory minimum of a 5 year license revocation with a 5 year conditional restricted license thereafter.

18) People v. T.M.

  • Defendant was arrested after stopped at a checkpoint in midtown Manhattan. He admitted to drinking and registered a .15 blood alcohol reading. As this was almost double the legal limit of .08, this became a difficult case. Defendant was a pharmacist and worried about his pharmacy license should he be convicted of a misdemeanor. The district attorney’s office would not consent to pleading him down to a violation because of the high breathalyzer reading. After months of back and forth, we successfully negotiated a plea to a traffic infraction for the defendant with no criminal record by showing that the breathalyzer reading was incorrect due to first, the defendant’s Diabetes, which often cases what appear to be false signs of intoxication and inflated breathalyzer results; and second, issues we found with the Intoxilyzer 5000EN machine that was used to measure his blood alcohol level.

19) People v. T.R.

  • Our client was charged in Manhattan Criminal Court, part B, for: two counts of Assault in the Third Degree, Penal Law sections 120.00(1) and 120.00(2), and Harassment in the Second Degree, Penal Law section 240.26(1). Our client was accused of punching a bouncer at a nightclub in the face. The prosecution claimed that our client, who was in New York City for an internship position for the summer, was arguing with the bouncer at the club to get back inside, and that he punched the bouncer in the face in front of witnesses. 911 was called and our client was arrested and charged, facing multiple misdemeanors and potential jail time.

    Our client was only 21 years old, active in his community, and an honors college student with a bright future. Because of an unfortunate incident in a city he was unfamiliar with, he was now facing a criminal conviction and jail time, which would prevent him from pursuing his career goals.

    Our client vehemently denied punching the bouncer, telling us that it was the bouncer who in fact hit him. We pointed out to the prosecution that these so-called “witnesses” probably all knew the bouncer and would therefore most likely side with him regardless of who was at fault, and that the bouncer was much larger than our client in size, making his claim that much more unreasonable. At first, the prosecution offered a violation, which, although not a criminal conviction, would require him to plead guilty to harassment. We were able to negotiate for an ACD, an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, which didn’t require our client to plead guilty to anything, and which would automatically be dismissed and sealed from our client’s record permanently in six months.

20) People v. J.S.

  • Our client was charged in Queens, part APN, for sexual crimes including: Rape in the Second Degree, Penal Law 130.30(1), Criminal Sexual Act in the Second Degree, Penal Law 130.45(1), and Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Penal Law 260.10(1). Our client, who was 20 years old at the time, was accused of having sex with a 13 year old girl on at least two separate occasions. Because of the age of the alleged victim, the crime required only that intercourse of some kind happened, without having to consider whether or not the alleged victim consented. Considering that the alleged victim became pregnant, which resulted in the birth of ​a child, it was almost impossible to defend against these charges.

    On the top count, Rape in the Second Degree, our client was facing two to seven years of state prison time and mandatory sex offender registration. Because of our client’s lack of a criminal history, the prosecution offered one year in prison on what would be a violent felony conviction, carrying more severe collateral consequences than a non violent charge. Despite the prosecution’s evidence, after over one year of negotiations, we were able to obtain an offer with no jail time on a non violent charge, Rape in the Third Degree, Penal Law 130.25 with level 1 registration meaning that he would not be visible online and his registration would be private.​

21) People v T.V.

  • Our client was charged in Manhattan, part F, with felony gun charges, including Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, Penal Law 265.03(3), a “violent felony offense” which carries significantly more prison time than a non-violent felony charge and more collateral issues for the future. The prosecution claimed that a 911 caller reported that our client had a firearm in his possession. The police swarmed the vehicle while he was lawfully parked on the street, ordered our client out of his car, and discovered a firearm loaded with six rounds in the trunk of the car inside of a backpack, with 29 additional rounds beside it.

    Our client was facing a minimum of 3 ½ years in state prison and a maximum of 15 years on these charges. Added to the fact that our client was on probation and had prior convictions in other states, advocating for our client was an uphill battle. Facing a probation violation for violating the terms of his probation by getting rearrested, our client was facing additional jail time.

    Nonetheless, for almost a year, we challenged the credibility of this 911 caller, arguing that the arrest was unlawful, citing his constitutional right to be free of a warrantless stop, search, and seizure. The case dragged on as we stuck to our position and refused to take an offer, until finally the prosecution moved to dismiss all of the charges. Not only was this arrest permanently sealed from our client’s record, but he was no longer facing the possibility of being violated on his probation for this arrest.

22) People v A.S.

  • Our client was charged in Manhattan Criminal Court, part E, for misdemeanor charges including Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated, VTL sections 1192(2) and 1192(3), as well as Operating a Motor Vehicle while Impaired by Alcohol, VTL section 1192(1). The prosecution claimed that he was driving his Mercedes Benz down a closed-off street where construction was taking place and ran over a construction worker’s foot. They also claimed that our client then got out of the vehicle and left the scene, adding misdemeanor charges for Leaving the Scene of an Incident with Physical Injury Without Reporting (VTL 600(2)(a) and VTL 600(2)(c)).

    About 25 minutes after this alleged incident, our client was arrested while he was inside of an apartment blocks away. He was allegedly identified by the pedestrian as the person who hit him with the car, and he was accused of having made statements admitting to drinking and driving the car. His breathalyzer reading was over the legal limit for alcohol. Our client had a previous DWI (driving while intoxicated) charge in Florida, which made this case much more difficult. When our office was retained, the prosecution was offering him a misdemeanor plea, which would give him a criminal record; force him to install an ignition interlock device on any cars he owned or drove; pay thousands of dollars in fees and court costs; and drive his insurance rates sky high. We refused to accept that offer, prepared to go to trial.

    After a critical close review of the documents and investigation, we continuously hammered the point that because 25 minutes had passed between the time he was allegedly driving and when he was arrested and subsequently tested for alcohol, the prosecution could not prove that he was drinking at the time he was driving. The prosecution fought this, bitterly relying on statements he allegedly made when he was arrested and witnesses at the scene.

    After a legal battle that lasted over a year and a half and our constant pressure and motions for dismissal, they finally consented to the dismissal of all the charges, and the case was permanently dismissed and sealed from our client’s record, with the same effect as a “not guilty” verdict after ​trial.