United States v. Atias, Docket No. CR-14-403
In United States v. Atias, Mr. Brissenden represented an individual charged in Federal Court, in connection with an alleged mortgage fraud scheme. Following a lengthy investigation, Mr. Brissenden was able to demonstrate that his client’s name had been forged on the mortgage documents, proving that she had no involvement in the alleged scheme. As a result, all charges were dismissed.
People of the State of New York v. Damien Burton, Docket No. 2014-00083
In People v. Burton, Mr. Brissenden handled the appeal of an individual who had been convicted of multiple felonies, following a convenience store shooting, and was sentenced to twenty-two years imprisonment. The client maintained that he had been wrongly identified and convicted. On appeal, Mr. Brissenden was able to demonstrate significant trial errors, which resulted in the conviction being overturned.
People of the State of New York v. Lawrence Henagin, Docket No. 2013-07819
Mr. Brissenden represented the defendant on appeal, where he argued that his conviction was the result of an unconstitutional search. The appellate court agreed, and the defendant's conviction was reversed.
United States v. Ghysels, Docket No. 09-5349-cr
In United States v. Ghysels, Mr. Brissenden represented a stock broker in connection with his appeal from a conviction in a high-profile securities fraud case. On appeal, Mr. Brissenden argued that federal prosecutors had concealed important evidence which tended to show that the defendant was not guilty, and had pursued an unconstitutional theory of criminal liability. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed, and the defendant’s conviction was vacated. The decision received extensive media coverage (see In the News section below for Wall Street Journal feature).
Izaguirre v. Lee, Docket No. 10-CV-3216
In 2010, the defendant was charged with murder following a barroom altercation. Prior to trial, his lawyer had been offered an eight year plea deal, but was warned by the trial judge that the defendant would be sentenced to 25 years if he failed to take the deal and was convicted. The defendant maintained his innocence, and insisted on his right to trial. Following trial, the defendant was acquitted of murder, but convicted of manslaughter. Nevertheless, the trial judge sentenced the defendant to 25 years, as promised.
Mr. Brissenden represented the defendant after his conviction, and challenged the 25 year sentence as unconstitutionally vindictive. In particular, Mr. Brissenden argued that the defendant was punished for exercising his constitutional right to trial. A federal district court agreed, and the sentence was vacated. The unusual decision received prominent coverage on the front page of The New York Law Journal.
People v. Eugene, Docket No 706-2005
In 2004, the defendant, a 15 year old Haitian national, was arrested in Long Island for a series of felony and misdemeanor offenses. At the time of his arrest, he possessed a false identification, which represented that he was 18 years old. As a result, he was charged as an adult. At the advice of his public defender, K.E. pled guilty.
Years later, the defendant settled down in Florida, where he found work, married a U.S. Citizen, and had a child. In 2011, however, he was picked up by the INS and placed in deportation proceedings based upon his prior convictions.
Mr. Brissenden was retained by his family, and promptly moved to vacate the convictions based upon the fact that the defendant was a minor at the time of the alleged offenses. Mr. Brissenden enlisted the assistance of the Haitian Consulate, tracked down the defendant’s Haitian birth records, and was able to conclusively demonstrate that he was a minor at the time of the offenses. As a result, the defendant’s convictions were vacated, and he was subsequently released by the INS.
United States v. Mancuso, Docket No. 01-CR-0074
The defendant, a bookkeeper and office manager, was charged in federal court with stealing close to $600,000 from her former employer. Mr. Brissenden moved for a dismissal of the case based upon the prosecution’s failure to bring a timely indictment, arguing that important evidence had been lost due to a lengthy period of delay caused by the government. The Court dismissed the indictment with prejudice. This highly unusual legal victory was featured on the front page of The New York Law Journal.
People v. Pape, Docket No. 2011-1740-cr
In People v. Pape, Mr. Brissenden represented a prominent local attorney in his appeal from a trespassing conviction, which resulted when the attorney’s neighbor (a state trooper), accused the attorney of stepping off an easement and onto the state trooper’s property. On appeal, Mr. Brissenden utilized property records and video surveillance to argue that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions. The appellate court agreed, and the conviction was vacated.
United States v. Mahaffy, Docket No. 05-CR-613
In United States v. Mahaffy, Stephen Scaring and Matthew Brissenden represented a stock broker charged with multiple counts of conspiracy and securities fraud. Following an eight week jury trial in Federal Court he was acquitted of 12 of 13 counts. The jury hung with respect to the sole remaining conspiracy count, which the Government subsequently agreed to dismiss.
People v. Battisti, Docket No. 01865N-09
In People v. Battisti, Scaring & Brissenden, PLLC represented a New York City Police officer charged with attempted first degree murder. The prosecution alleged that the defendant had hired a hit man to murder his ex-wife. The principal prosecution witness was the purported hit man, who had been arrested after assaulting the defendant’s ex-wife, and who had subsequently sought to make a deal with the prosecution by implicating the defendant in the attack.
Prior to trial, Mr. Brissenden successfully moved to suppress evidence which police officers had illegally obtained from the defendant's property. Thereafter, he spent weeks listening to and dissecting hundreds of recorded jailhouse telephone calls made by the purported hit man. The recordings, which had never been reviewed by the prosecution, revealed that their primary witness had repeatedly told his friends and family members that the testimony he planned to give at trial was untrue.
Following trial, the defendant was acquitted on all counts.
People v. Green, Docket No. 4800-2005
Scaring & Brissenden represented the defendant, a high level corporate executive at a global insurance brokerage, who was charged by the New York State Attorney General’s Office in an alleged bid-ridding scheme. After more than three years of litigation, prosecutors voluntarily dismissed all charges against the defendant.
United States v. Geiger, Docket No. 07-CR-64
Matthew Brissenden represented an auto-mechanic who had been charged as a member of a far reaching narcotics conspiracy. Mr. Brissenden met repeatedly with prosecutors and secured a favorable plea agreement for the defendant. He thereafter prepared a detailed sentencing submission for the Court, which outlined the defendant’s minor role in the conspiracy, his stable employment history, his devotion to his family, and his remarkable efforts at post-arrest rehabilitation. As a result, the defendant was sentenced to time served (which amounted to several days imprisonment), supervised release, community service, and a fine
People v. Tabei., Docket No. 3717/2009
Mr. Brissenden and Stephen Scaring represented a New York City public official charged with official misconduct. Messrs. Scaring and Brissenden tried the case in New York County Supreme Court, and the defendant was acquitted of all charges.
Disclaimer: The material and information contained on this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction for advice regarding your individual situation. Please be advised that contacting us via this website does not create an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent via this site.