“I’m sorry! I’m sorry! I’m sorry!”

He’d killed thoughtlessly; he’d denied responsibility coldly. Only when the cuffs went on at sentencing did reckless thug David McKie — the petty-theft getaway driver who’d fatally mowed down a brilliant film editor on the Upper West Side — reveal something like a soul.

“I’m sorry,” McKie mouthed again and again yesterday, breaking into gasping sobs and turning toward the audience of a Manhattan courtroom where the friends of editor Karen Schmeer sat watching, themselves in tears.

McKie will serve five to 15 years for Schmeer’s January 2010 manslaughter. He’d struck Schmeer after blowing through four red lights on Broadway while trying to outrace cops after shoplifting a stash of cold medicines from a CVS at 86th and Amsterdam with a pair of buddies.

Schmeer was just 39 years old and at the height of her award-spangled career, having served as editor for such lauded documentaries as “Fast, Cheap & Out of Control,” and the Oscar winner “The Fog of War.”

A beautiful woman described as witty and warm by friends, she was carrying a bag of groceries across Broadway at 90th Street, just a block from her home, when McKie struck her. She was tossed into the air, bouncing off McKie’s car and a parked car before hitting the pavement.

“Her injuries were so extensive that no single cause of death could be determined,” lead prosecutor Peter Casolaro wrote in court papers.

“He looked me in the eye,” one of Schmeer’s friends, filmmaker Nina Davenport, said of McKie yesterday, after the emotional sentencing, sounding surprised.

Others among Schmeer’s friends, standing and embracing in a courthouse hallway, said the same thing — their dear friend’s killer had made a point of looking into the eyes of each of them before he was led away, his convulsive sobs audible even after he disappeared from sight.

“I’ll never know him; I’ll never see him again,” said Davenport, 45, of Brooklyn. “But at least he showed some sign of humanity,”

“I didn’t see it,” responded Maribeth Edmonds, 53, of South Hampton, one of Schmeer’s closest friends

“I hate him,” she said, in tears. “I’m just not open to it. Not yet.”

The defense lawyer had claimed during the sentencing that McKie, who had no criminal record, was a “salvagable” young man with a “brilliant future.”

Those words had stung Edmonds.

“He has a brilliant future?” Edmonds said, her voice choked by tears. “Karen had a brilliant future. We had a brilliant future together. We were going to grow old together.”

McKie was initially charged with murder under the legal theory that he had displayed a depraved indifference to human life. But a recent, precedent-setting state Court of Appeals reversal in a very similar Rochester case made it unlikely that a murder conviction against McKie could ever be sustained.

He was allowed to plead guilty in July, to manslaughter — leaving Schmeer’s friends grappling to understand how McKie’s actions could ever be construed as less than depraved, and as less than murder.

Schmeer’s work lives on, her friends noted. Her final film, Bobby Fisher Against the World, was lauded at Sundance. A fellowship for emerging young editors has been created in her name — the Karen Schmeer Film Editing Fellowship, the details of which are at KarenSchmeer.com.

Attorney for the defense: Matthew D. Myers

laura.italiano@nypost.com

Read more

A Columbia University student who was the main target of an undercover investigation of a ring that sold drugs from the campus will be sentenced to six months in jail after pleading guilty Tuesday to selling cocaine.

The student, Harrison David, is expected to begin serving his time on Rikers Island on Aug. 30, when he is formally sentenced.

Charges are pending against four other students — Christopher Coles, Adam Klein, Jose Perez and Michael Wymbs — who were arrested with Mr. David last December; their lawyers filed motions Tuesday as part of their requests for a drug-treatment resolution that could lead to their clients’ cases being dismissed.

Mr. David, 20, was charged with the most serious crimes of the five students, who were arrested under what the authorities called Operation Ivy League.

Mr. David will most likely be expelled from Columbia as a result of the guilty plea, and his felony conviction may compromise his efforts to get into a new university, said his lawyer, Matthew D. Myers.

“He has huge regrets about it,” Mr. Myers said. “I think he is taking responsibility for it. He is not being combative. He’s not disgruntled about the results.”

After he is released from jail, Mr. David will have to serve five years’ probation.

Mr. David left the courthouse without speaking. A spokesman for Columbia declined to comment.

The city’s Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, which is handling the case, initially offered Mr. David a deal of one year in prison and two years’ probation. But William Novak, an assistant district attorney, said in court that the office believed the new arrangement served the interest of justice because it meant that Mr. David would have to be under supervision for a longer period of time after his release from jail.

The top charge against Mr. David, second-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance, carried a mandatory minimum sentence of three years’ incarceration and a maximum of 10 years. Instead, he pleaded guilty to third-degree sale of a controlled substance, which does not have a mandatory minimum.

Mr. David, dressed in a dark pinstriped suit, admitted in court that he had sold cocaine last August to an undercover officer. The sale took place at Mr. David’s apartment, according to prosecutors.

Mr. Myers, Mr. David’s lawyer, said he thought the plea “was a fair resolution.”

It would have been too harsh to send Mr. David to a state prison, Mr. Myers said. Mr. David had never been incarcerated before, Mr. Myers said, adding that he was respectful and “has a very bright future.”

“You’re talking about a brilliant kid,” Mr. Myers said.

Mr. Myers said Mr. David, who studied engineering at Columbia, would apply for a certificate of relief from the judge, which would loosen some of the restrictions on him as a convicted felon, like on his right to vote.

Attorney for the defense: Matthew D. Myers

A version of this article appeared in print on July 20, 2011, on page A24 of the New York edition with the headline: Columbia Student Admits Selling Cocaine on Campus.

The 20-year-old who’d faced the most serious drug sale charges in last year’s roundup of five Columbia University students is heading to Rikers for just 3 1/2 months under a deal struck in a Manhattan courtroom today.

Harrison David, son of a Boston-area plastic surgeon, had been a third year engineering student when he and four buddies were busted on charges they sold felony-weight quantities of coke, pot and pills out of their frats and apartments.

David — charged with selling just under an ounce of cocaine to an undercover on one occasion, and four grams in a second sale, for a total of just over $1,300 — pleaded guilty in Manhattan Supreme Court to criminal sale of cocaine.

He’ll turn himself in on August 30, and will be sentenced to six months jail and five years probation under a deal struck with the citywide Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor.

With good behavior and factoring in the two weeks jail he’s already served, he should be released after 3 and 1/2 months, said his lawyer, Matthew Myers.

Prosecutors has last month demanded David serve a full year of state prison and two years probation.

“While it will be less incarceratory time, an addition of three years of monitoring (via probation) will be in the interest of justice,” said lead prosecutor William Novak.

David has been suspended from Columbia since his arrest in December; he expects to be expelled now that he has entered a guilty plea, Myers said.

“It’s going to be difficult,” the lawyer said of David’s prospects in finding another school that will accept a student with a felony drug conviction. “And you’re talking about a brilliant kid.

“Hopefully, someone will take a chance on him at a smaller school,” the lawyer said.

Charges remain against the other four young men; prosecutors say they would agree to no-jail deals for them providing they still plead guilty to felony drug charges.

Reposted from: The New York Post

Attorney for the defense: Matthew D. Myers

 This rule was confimed recently by the Court of Appeals in Petrone v. McCloy, 2009 NY Slip Opinion 04694, Decided June 9, 2009:  “[W]hen harm is caused by a domestic animal, its owner’s liability is determined solely by application of the rule articulated in Collier- . . .  i.e., the rule of strict liability for harm caused by a domestic animal whose owner knows or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities (see Collier, 1 NY3d at 446-447).

 Vicious propensities include the “propensity to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation” (Dickson v McCoy, 39 NY 400, 403 [1868]). The burden, of course, will be upon the plaintiff to establish that the defendant owner of the dog knew or should have known of the animal’s vicious propensities.  But, importantly, the dog IS NOT given “one free bite” as the law of our state is frequently mistook.  As the Court of Appeals has acknowledged in Collier v. Zambito:

“Knowledge of vicious propensities may of course be established by proof of prior acts of a similar kind of which the owner had notice (see Benoit v Troy & Lansingburgh R.R. Co., 154 NY 223, 225 [1897] . . . In addition, a triable issue of fact as to knowledge of a dog’s vicious propensities might be raised– even in the absence of proof that the dog had actually bitten someone–by evidence that it had been known to growl, snap or bare its teeth. Also potentially relevant is whether the owner chose to restrain the dog, and the manner in which the dog was restrained (see Hahnke v Friederich, 140 NY 224, 226 [1893]; see also Rider v White, 65 NY 54, 55-56 [1875]). The keeping of a dog as a guard dog may give rise to an inference that an owner had knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities.  See, Hahnke, 140 NY at 227 . . .  Finally, plaintiffs are not unduly burdened by the requirement of proof that a defendant know or should know of an animal’s vicious propensities. Once such knowledge is established, an owner faces strict liability for the harm the animal causes as a result of those propensities (see Strunk v Zoltanski, 62 NY2d 572, 575-576 [1984]). This disposition does not entitle dog owners to an automatic ‘one free bite.’ There could certainly be circumstances where, although a dog has not yet bitten a person, its vicious nature is apparent. In that situation, the owner’s success in keeping the dog confined or restrained in the past would not insulate the owner from liability.”

Thus, “a vicious propensity is not limited to a bite or other attack, but ‘includes a propensity to act in a manner that may endanger the safety of another, whether playful or not.” Provorse v Curtis, 288 AD2d 832; Mitura v Roy, 174 AD2d 1020; Anderson v Carduner, 279 AD2d 369, 369-370); Marquardt v Milewski, 288 AD2d 928, 732 NYS2d 801.  (Any ‘known tendency to attack others, even in playfulness, as in the case of the overly friendly large dog with a propensity for enthusiastic jumping up on visitors, will be enough to make the defendant liable for damages resulting from such an act.’).

 As such, there is a growing body of case law which has permitted plaintiffs to establish a dog’s “vicious propensity” without an actual showing of a prior attack by the animal. See, e.g., Anderson v Carduner, 279 AD2d 369, 720 NYS2d 18 (dog’s tendency to jump up and greet people causes risk of injury); Moriano v Schmidt, 133 AD2d 72, 518 NYS2d 416 (dog growling and pulling at chain); Fontecchio v Esposito, 108 AD2d 780, 485 NYS2d 113 (dog’s tendency to bite, snap, bark and bare teeth); Lagoda v Dorr, 28 AD2d 208, 284 NYS2d 130 (dog’s tendency to jump up on people).  Further, the damages recoverable from a strictly liable owner are not limited to those suffered as a result of direct contact with the animal. see Pollard v United Parcel Service, 302 AD2d 884, 754 NYS2d 473 (plaintiff who escaped the bite of the defendant’s dog may recover damages sustained as a result of being struck by a motor vehicle while attempting to evade the dog).

 Very often, cases without a prior bite will turn on the specific facts related to the dog in question and the manner in which it was handled by the owner.  The jury may consider whether the owner chose to restrain the animal and the manner in which the animal was restrained, see Brice v Bauer, 108 NY 428; Morse v Colombo, 8 AD3d 808; or that “Beware of Dog” signs were posted, Parente v Chavez, supra; Shaw v Burgesss, 303 AD2d 857, 756 NYS 2d; Arcara v Whytas, 219 AD2d 871; But, see,  Altmann vs Emigrant Savings Bank, 249 AD2d 67, 68 (First Dep’t 1998) (Presence of “Beware of Dog” signs standing alone are not enough to imply that dog owner knew of his dog’s vicious propensities); Frantz v. McGonagle, 242 AD2d 888 (Fourth Dep’t 1997); Arcara v.Whytas, 219 AD2d 871, 872 (Fourth Dep’t 1995). The fact that a dog was chained and strained on its chain and barked when people approached was held insufficient to create an inference that the dog was vicious.  Gill vs Welch, 136 AD2d 940 (Fourth Dept, 1988).

IF a defendant can establish that his dog has not previously exhibited any vicious propensity, he may be entitled to summary judgment. Arcara, 219 AD2d at 871, 872 (undisputed proof that dog had never bitten anyone before and had never bared its teeth or growled at anyone before entitled summary judgment). If the defendant moves for summary judgment and introduces admissible evidence that he had no knowledge of the dog’s vicious propensities, the burden shifts to plaintiff to submit rebuttal evidence of risk having his complaint dismissed. Althoff v. Lefebvre, 240 AD2d 604 (Second Dep’t 1997). If there is conflicting evidence as to the dog’s vicious propensities, the issue must be given to a jury to decide.  Frantz v. McGonagle, 242 AD2d 888 (Fourth Dep’t 1997).

As for damages, a plaintiff may recover for all out-of-pocket costs, medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering and even Punitive Damages in certain circumstance.  See, e.g., Nardi v. Gonzalez, 165 Misc.2d 336, 339 (1995).  Given the vicious nature of an animal attack and the physical as well as psychological injuries it can wreak, the damages in such cases may be very significant. IF the dog owner had knowledge that his dog presented a risk, or if he should have known based upon prior actions of the dog, he or she will be strictly liable for all the damages caused.

Harrison David, SEAS ’12, who was arrested last month for selling drugs, will seek a plea bargain that does not include jail time, his attorney said Tuesday.

David is one of five students who were arrested in an on-campus police raid last month and charged with selling cocaine, marijuana, MDMA, Adderall, and LSD, according to the New York City Special Narcotics Prosecutor’s Office. David is the only one accused of selling cocaine.

David’s attorney, Matthew Myers, said a jail cell would be wasted on his client. While emphasizing that the allegations against David have not yet been proven, he said that David now understands that he cannot return to dealing.

“If the prosecutors feel as though some sort of period of jail would be appropriate—I just don’t see what purpose that would serve,” Myers said. “I think Harrison David has learned his lesson more than the average person.”

Myers said David has been suspended but not expelled from Columbia, and that he is taking the situation “very seriously.” He added that David is making plans to apply to other schools, as it is likely Columbia will expel him if he is convicted.

“I don’t want to put words in his mouth. It’s certainly a huge disappointment in light of the fact that he was able to gain acceptance into one of the best schools in the country, and now it’s in jeopardy,” Myers said.

Columbia will not comment on Harrison’s status at the University in accordance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which restricts educational institutions from releasing information about students.

Myers said that David is currently living in Florida with a former captain in the New York State Department of Correctional Services who is a family friend. Myers said this is meant to give David a disciplined environment to help him “get back on the right track.”

David said in an email to Spectator that he has been in touch with friends from home and school while in Florida.

“I’m happy here, just trying to move forward with my life, make some money and I’m probably looking to transfer schools,” David said in the email.

Myers noted that David’s father did not pay his son’s bail until two weeks after his arrest in an attempt to teach him a “hard-love lesson.”

“His father, along with counsel, thought that it may serve to deter future conduct, and that the situation was not to be treated lightly,” Myers said. “But of course the Department of Corrections is no place for a kid like Harrison David, so at some point we did the safe thing and bailed him out.”

Myers would not estimate the likelihood of David receiving a plea bargain that does not involve jail time. He said that the media attention surrounding the case—which the Special Narcotics Prosecutor’s Office dubbed “Operation Ivy League”—puts more pressure on prosecutors to seek jail time.

“They tend to let public perception get into their wheelhouse,” Myers said. “The bargains always involve higher jail sentences when you have the press lurking around in courtrooms.”

David has been charged with a Class A2 felony for selling cocaine, a crime that generally calls for a sentence of three to eight years, Myers said. The other defendants—Coles, Adam Klein, CC ’12, Jose Stephan Perez, CC ’12, and Michael Wymbs, SEAS ’11—have been charged with less serious offenses.

The five students are next due in court on March 1.

Stuart Ross, the down-on-his heels septaugenarian who brought the Surfs to the U.S. in the ’80s, was sentenced to at least two years probation today for a bizarre, $11 million extortion scheme against his son-in-law, London private equity giant David Blitzer.

Ross had pleaded guilty in August to demanding $5.5 million from Blitzer in return for having no more contact with Blitzer’s wife, who is Ross’s daughter, and another $5.5 million from Blitzer for having no more contact with Blitzer or his firm, the Blackstone Group.

Ross has tried repeatedly since then to withdraw that plea and re-assert his innocence, claiming he only admitted guilt so he could be sprung from Rikers, where he was undergoing what he termed as inadequate treatment for double pneumonia.

Ross left the courtroom today vowing to appeal Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Bonnie Wittner’s decision not to let Ross take back his plea.

“The only alternative I had was to sign the plea and I could leave immediately,” Ross said, insisting he never intentionally extorted anyone back in 2008. Ross’s lawyer, Matthew Myers, today called the threats, “alcoholic ramblings.”

Ross will undergo alcohol counseling as part of his sentence, and can’t contact the Blitzers, or his grandchildren, for at least eight years.

Until his indictment two years ago, Ross’s claim to fame was owning the North American rights to the bouncy blue Belgian cartoon creatures. The former investment made him millions — now lost, his lawyer says. He had been unable to post $200,000 bail before being sprung today.
Ross, originally of Aventura, Fla., suffers lymphonic leukemia and heart problems, said his lawyer. His co-defendant, lawyer Stuart Jackson, was acquitted this month of charges he helped in the scheme.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/

Friday, March 19th 2010, 4:00 AM

A Bronx man is suing the city for $1.5 million because he missed his father’s funeral when he was arrested for soliciting sex – a charge that was later dropped.

Clifton Quarles Jr., fought the criminal charges for one year, refusing to accept a conditional discharge and demanding a trial.

Prosecutors dismissed the case after the cops who busted Quarles, 51, never showed up for court appearances – but that was too late to honor his father.

“It’s very upsetting,” he said in a statement released by his lawyer. “My father was my best friend and I missed his funeral. I will have to live with that for a lifetime.”

A security guard at a homeless shelter, Quarles was arrested Jan. 7, 2009, around 9:45 p.m. near his mother’s home in Bedford-Stuyvesant.

He had just spent the day making funeral arrangements for his father, who died of cancer.

He was walking on Putnam Ave. near Broadway carrying a suit for the funeral when he was approached by a woman wearing a black mini-skirt, he said.

The suit claims the woman offered him oral sex for $10 and he laughed and walked away.

The woman, who turned out to be an undercover cop, called for him to stop – and Quarles was handcuffed by plainclothes cops.

“Mr. Quarles vehemently denied any negotiation or agreement with the undercover regarding sexual favors,” his lawyer Christopher Galiardo said.

The cops refused to issue a desk appearance ticket or a summons – even after Quarles explained that his father’s funeral was the next day, Galiardo said.

He spent more than 24 hours in custody, released only in time for the burial.

After prosecutors got the case, Quarles refused to cut a deal because he wanted to clear the name he shared with his late father and mend ways with relatives angry over the arrest.

He made 10 court appearances before the case was dismissed in December. The suit names the city and arresting Officers Jason Ianno and Lenise Walker-Wilson. The undercover cop is not identified.

The city Law Department said it had not seen the suit.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/