Franzblau Dratch, P.C. Large firm representation, small firm service

PRISON INQUIRY

New York and New Jersey

 

 

INMATE AWARDED 16 MILLION DOLLAR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

 

FRANZBLAU DRATCH P.C. is a well-known reputable law firm, practicing in both New York and New Jersey and specializing in, amongst other areas of law, Prisoner’s Rights. Our skills in matters of Prisoner’s Rights have been developed and honed over many years of experience. As a result of this experience as well as the genuine care we afford our clients and the deprivations of their rights, we have enjoyed much success in the area of prisoner law.

Our services include and not limited to:

Administrative appeals from denials of parole or temporary work release
Article 78 petitions from denials of parole or work release
Counseling regarding submission of documentary packages in support of future parole applications or work release
Direct appeals to the Appellate Divisions seeking to overturn from judgments of convictions and unfair sentences
Court of claims suits seeking compensation for personal injuries (Subject to the Provisions discussed below)
42 U.S.C. Section 1983 federal lawsuits seeking compensation for injuries sustained as a result of the violation of prisoner’s Constitutional rights
Error Coram Nobis Motions – Challenging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel
Detainer/ Multi-State pending criminal proceedings
Petitions for Clemency – Appeals for Leniency to the Governor’s Office
Appellate Division Application Rule 3:20
PCR Motions Challenging the Legality of Convictions and Sentences
 

THE IMPORTANCE OF COUNSEL

Perhaps the most important element enhancing an inmate’s probability of succeeding is that he or she be represented by counsel. To an overwhelming extent, our courts provide significantly more serious consideration to the petitions presented by inmates who are represented by counsel. The petitions instituted by those inmates not represented by an attorney generally get much less consideration. Of equal importance, aside from the quality of the petition presented by counsel, is the fact that many judges only afford oral argument to those petitions where inmates are represented by counsel. These oral arguments often have a profound affect on the ultimate outcome of the proceeding.

EXPLANATION OF SERVICES

- Preparation Of Administrative Appeals From Parole And Temporary Release Program Denials - Unlike most of the boiler plate submissions made by or on behalf of inmates who have been denied temporary work release or parole, we carefully tailor each appeal to the individual circumstances of each inmate’s case. In that fashion, we are able to immeasurably increase the chance for a successful outcome as well as making certain that all relevant issues are preserved for subsequent Article 78 Petition challenges and appellate appeals.

- Counseling Services That Permit The Submission Of Optimal Parole And Temporary Release Documentary Packages In Support Of Temporary Release Applications And Parole Hearings - We provide guidance and assistance in the preparation of letters and other documents that will support and enhance an inmate’s chance for success both at their Temporary Release and Parole hearings.

- Article 78 Petitions challenging temporary and parole release denials - Recent decisions from the State’s Supreme Courts and Appellate Divisions have resulted in an increasing number of parole denial annulments and the concomitant granting of de novo hearings. With increasing frequency, inmates are being released at these re-hearings and where again denied are achieving some measured success on subsequent Appellate Division appeals. A clear trend now exists whereby courts are more receptive to reviewing and reversing parole release denials. Recent developments, in large part responsible for this recent trend, is that the courts, particularly in the First and Second Departments, have with increasing frequency allowed venue to be laid in the county where the crime was committed. As a result, no longer can the Parole Board rely on Article 78 Petitions being heard in either Albany County (principal office of the Parole Board) or in some western or upstate region of the State (facility location) where predetermined proclivities toward denial of parole is an almost foregone conclusion.

- CPL 440.10 & 440.20 Motions Challenging The Legality Of Convictions And Sentences - Article 440 motions challenge the legality o a conviction or sentence. That is, if the conviction or sentence was imposed improperly (not following legal standard), then the conviction or sentence may be thrown out. If the Article 440 motion is successful, a new trial or a new sentence will be received.

- Habeas Corpus Proceedings Challenging Convictions And Sentences Obtained In Violation Of An Inmate’s Constitutional Rights - A petition for habeas corpus is a post-conviction proceeding in which the courts will consider whether the government violated an inmate’s federal rights during the direct review of his/her case. It is considered a “collateral” (indirect) attack on the conviction, as opposed to a direct appeal, which focuses on the trial record itself. Claims raised in a habeas petition are claims that are not apparent from reading the record- other facts are needed to prove the claim. As part of direct review, an inmate has the constitutional right to a trial and appeal. A habeas petition is an alternative argument seeking an inmate’s release because of violations of his/her federal rights, and not necessarily based upon innocence. There is not automatic right to habeas review. A petition for such review is required. If the court agrees that the conviction or sentence violates the federal constitution, a federal law, or treaty, it can order a re-sentencing, a new trial, or immediate release.

- Court Of Claims Suits Seeking Compensation For Personal Injuries - these claims are for injuries sustained as a result of (1) excessive force by correctional officers or (2) or a correctional facilities negligence in (i) properly protecting inmates from injuries by other inmates (ii) providing adequate medical care (medical negligence) or (iii) adequately and properly maintaining its premises

- 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Federal Lawsuits Seeking Compensation For Injuries Sustained As A Result Of The Violation Of Prisoner’s Constitutional Rights -these lawsuits relate to seeking redress for the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws. This law makes liable every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia , subjects, or causes to be subjected any person who is a citizen of the Untied States, inclusive of incarcerated inmates, to injury occasioned by any such deprivation. These suits include injuries occasioned by, amongst other modalities, (i) assault (ii) prison conditions and (iii) health issues in adequate medical care.

- Appellate Division Application - Application to the Appellate Division challenging parole release denials as being arbitrary and/or in contravention of existing administrative rules and regulations and of the law. Direct appeals seeking to overturn convictions and illegal sentences.

- Rule 3:20 PCR Motions Challenging the Legality of Convictions and Sentences - Rule 3:20 PCR motions challenging the legality of a conviction or sentence. That is, if the conviction or sentence was imposed improperly (not following legal 3:20 standard), then the conviction or sentence may be thrown out. If the motions are successful, a new trial or a new sentence will be received.

- Detainer/Multi-State pending criminal proceedings - If you have a detainer lodged against you, from another state or from the United States government, we might be able to assist you in resolving or removing said detainer.

- Error Coram Nobis Motions - Challenging ineffective assistance of prior counsel.

- Petitions for Clemency - Appeals for leniency to the Governor’s Office.

 


Our fee for litigating claims for monetary compensation in the Court of Claims or in the Federal Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 is contingent upon the success of the case.   In most circumstances such fees are equivalent to 1/3 of the monies recovered.