Compassionate Criminal Defense Support
We're here to guide you with care and understanding.
About Edelstein and Grossman
Compassionate Criminal Defense Team
At Edelstein and Grossman, we understand that facing legal challenges can be overwhelming. Our dedicated team is here to provide sincere support, guiding you through every step with care and understanding. We are committed to defending your rights with compassion and integrity, ensuring you never feel alone in this difficult journey.
photo gallery
Case History of Our Firm
Edelstein & Grossman have had numerous legal successes over the years. The cases listed below
represent some of our more notable victories. In addition to these, we have had success in
overturning pleas and preventing deportation of non-citizen clients based on failure of their prior
counsel to advise our clients of possible adverse immigration consequences. In the civil arena,
we have both won and successfully defended against numerous summary judgment motions, and
have secured disability pensions for police officers and other public employees who were denied
that relief by the retirement system. Finally, in our immigration practice, we have successfully
obtained work visas that allow our clients to stay and prosper in this country. Please be aware,
however, that past results are no guarantee of future success in any individual case.
New York State Criminal Appeals
People v. Rhynes, Indictment, No. 1984/067A (December 8th, 2023): The Monroe County Court vacated defendant's convictions for a double murder in 1983 after we represented Mr. Rhynes at an evidentiary hearing pursuant to C.P.L. 440.10. Edelstein & Grossman discovered and presented evidence that two witnesses had been coerced by the police and prosecution and testified falsely against Mr. Rhynes. Mr. Grossman personally walked Mr. Rhynes out of Attica correctional facility after he had served 37 years for a crime he did not commit. Edelstein & Grossman are also currently representing Mr. Rhynes in a civil suit to get compensation for this injustice.
People v. Rahaman, Appellate Division, 3rd Dept, WL 1170014, New York, April 30, 2026
Convictions for multiple assault counts vacated and a new trial ordered on appeal of a CPL § 440.10 motion, on the ground that defendant's trial counsel was ineffective for his failure to object to the empaneling of an anonymous jury, and where the appellate court substituted its discretion for that of the motion court.
People v. Borcyk, 184 A.D.3d 1183 (June 12, 2020): Defense counsel argued and presented proof that the witness's former boyfriend or his associates killed the victim, which was defendant's sole theory of the victim's death. It was thus vital for defense counsel to corroborate the evidence placing the witness's former boyfriend at the scene of the murder, but defense counsel failed to do so. Upon our firm's representation of Mr. Borcyk at an evidentiary hearing, the court found that under the circumstances of this case, the court found that this was not a legitimate trial strategy based on the theory he pursued and concluded that the error was sufficiently egregious to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
People v. Hargrove, 162 A.D.2d 25 (2d Dept. 2018): The Second department affirmed the
vacatur of defendant’s murder conviction after an evidentiary hearing in the Kings County
Supreme Court. One of the cases the infamous Detective Louis Scarcella, the court found that
evidence of his prior police misconduct in other cases constituted newly discovered evidence that
mandated that a new trial be granted. The decision significantly changed the test that courts may
use in considering newly discovered evidence, easing the burden on defendants. Mr. Hargrove’s
case was eventually dismissed by the Kings County Supreme Court after the People indicated
that they would not retry defendant.
People v. Hernandez, 167 A.D.3d 936 (2d Dept. 2018): Conviction for murder in the second
degree vacated and the count dismissed, on appeal of a CPL § 440.10 motion, on the ground that
defendant should be entitled to a retroactive application of a change in the law concerning
depraved indifference murder that occurred before his conviction became final. Defendant’s
case was eventually dismissed.
People v. Hamilton, 115 A.D.3d 12 (2d Dept. 2014): The Second Department ruled for the first
time ever that a defendant may present a freestanding claim of actual innocence even if the
evidence defendant presented was subject to previous procedural bars pursuant to C.P.L. §
440.10. The court granted Mr. Hamilton an evidentiary hearing on actual innocence which did
not occur as he was subsequently exonerated of his murder conviction after an investigation by
the Kings County Conviction Review Unit. Mr. Hamilton eventually received a substantial
settlement after Edelstein & Grossman filed a wrongful conviction lawsuit on his behalf.
People v. Bryant, 117 A.D.3d 1586 (2d Dept. 2014): The Fourth Department reversed a decision
denying defendant’s C.P.L. § 440.10 motion after an evidentiary hearing in the Monroe County
Court and vacated defendant’s murder conviction. The Court held that newly discovered
evidence consisting of two witnesses who stated that defendant was not at the scene of the crime
warranted a new trial. They did so despite the fact that the lower court found credibility issues
with one of the witnesses.
People v. Becoats, 17 N.Y.3d 643 (2011): Edelstein & Grossman represented Jason Wright, who
appealed his case together with co-defendant Corey Becoats. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reduced his murder conviction to second-degree manslaughter. The defendant then
obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, which threw out both the manslaughter
conviction and a related robbery conviction on the ground that the trial court erred in finding that
an exculpatory statement was inadmissible hearsay. On remand, the defendant pled guilty to
second-degree robbery and received a substantially reduced sentence.
People v DiPippo, 82 A.D.3d 786 (2d Dept. 2011): The Second Department granted the
defendant a new trial, in a 16-year-old murder case, on the ground that his trial counsel had
failed to disclose a conflict of interest based on his past representation of another possible
suspect in the murder. This decision was rendered in an appeal of the defendant’s fourth CPL §
440.10 motion.
People v Hull, 71 A.D.3d 1336 (3d Dept. 2010): Conviction for murder in the second degree
vacated and new trial granted, on appeal of a CPL § 440.10 motion, on the ground that the
defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to investigate a gun expert who opined that his
weapon was capable of discharging accidentally in the way defendant had testified. On remand,
the defendant was acquitted of murder and convicted of manslaughter.
Habeas Cases
Ganthier v. Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility
United States District Court, E.D. New York., August 26, 2025; Slip Copy 2025 WL 2452386
The petitioner was granted habeas relief on a murder conviction, on the ground that admission of an autopsy report over his objection violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because the author of that report was not produced for cross-examination at trial. The defendant was remanded for a new trial.
Petronio v. Walsh, 736 F. Supp. 2d 640 (E.D.N.Y. 2010): The petitioner was granted habeas
relief on a depraved indifference murder conviction, on the ground that the evidence offered at
his trial was legally insufficient based on the subsequent reinterpretation of the depraved
indifference murder statute in the years following the trial. Following this decision, the
defendant pled guilty to second-degree manslaughter and received a sentence of time served.
Cotto v. Herbert, 331 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2003): On appeal from the denial of habeas relief, the
Second Circuit reversed and found that the petitioner had been deprived of a fair trial when the
trial court precluded his attorney from cross-examining a prosecution witness. After this
decision, the defendant pled guilty to criminal use of a weapon in the first degree and received a
substantially reduced sentence. The Cotto decision has since been cited in more than 950 other cases.
Federal Criminal Cases
United States v. Flores, 725 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir. 2013): The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for
resentencing after finding that there was insufficient evidence to support a Sentencing Guideline
enhancement U.S.S.G. § 3B1.4 for the use of a minor in a drug trafficking offense.
United States v. Corsey, 723 F.3d 366 (2d Cir. 2013): The Second Circuit found that a maximum
sentence for a defendant convicted of fraud was procedurally unreasonable because the
sentencing judge did not sufficiently explain her reasons for imposing that sentence. The circuit
court also noted that there were several significant mitigating factors that might warrant a lower
sentence on remand.
United States v. Archer, 671 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2011): The Second Circuit held that there was
insufficient evidence to support several of the sentencing enhancements imposed by the district
court. On remand, where the defendant was also represented by Edelstein & Grossman, his
sentence was reduced from the five years originally imposed to two years.
United States v. Garcia, 587 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 2009): The Second Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated the defendant’s guilty plea in a money laundering conspiracy, determining that plain
error occurred because the conduct admitted by defendant did not provide a sufficient factual
basis for finding a violation of the money laundering statute. The court found that, since there
was no indication from the record that the underlying transaction was an effort to conceal
anything about the money and the purpose of the transaction was simply to pay for the drugs, the
elements of money laundering were not made out. On remand, where the defendant was also
represented by Jonathan Edelstein, the sentence was reduced from the 108 months originally
imposed to 57 months.
Civil Appeals
Frank v. Parnell v. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 2023 WL 5814938, Sept 8, 2023
The Fifth Circuit reversed a decision in a section 1983 case which had granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that police officer's use of force, including tasers and chokeholds, in the death of a mentally challenged African American man was in not entitled to qualified immunity, granting the plaintiff's estate the right to a trial on the civil rights claim.
Saladino v. American Airlines, 500 Fed. Appx. 69 (2d Cir. 2012): In a products liability case
involving several novel issues, the Second Circuit upheld a judgment of more than $48 million in
favor of a plaintiff who was severely injured and rendered quadriplegic as a result of a defective
baggage tractor on an airline tarmac. Edelstein & Grossman had previously been of counsel to
the plaintiff’s trial attorney in successfully opposing the defendant’s motions to set aside the
liability and damages verdicts.
Padilla v. Edison Transport, Inc., 104 A.D.3d 518 (1 st Dept. 2013): The First Department
affirmed a decision granting summary judgment to the defendants and rejecting the plaintiff’s
argument that the corporate veil should be pierced. Edelstein & Grossman was also of counsel to the defendants in the lower-court litigation.
Alvira v. Residential Management, 89 A.D.3d 437 (1 st Dept. 2011): The Appellate Division
reversed a decision which granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that it was
the plaintiff’s “special employer,” finding that issues of fact were present as to whether a special
employment relationship existed.
Lopez v. Retail Property Trust, 84 A.D.3d 891 (2d Dept. 2011): The Second Department vacated
a lower-court ruling that had precluded the plaintiff from obtaining full discovery from the
defendant escalator company.
Alli v. Lucas, 72 A.D.3d 994 (2d Dept. 2010): The Second Department overturned a verdict in
favor of the defendant and reinstated the plaintiff’s claim, finding that the verdict was against the
weight of the evidence. On remand, the case settled for a large six-figure sum.
Article 78 Petitions
Murphy v. Comptroller, 92 A.D.3d 1022 (3d Dept. 2012): The Third Department annulled the
Retirement System’s denial of accidental disability retirement benefits, finding that the petitioner
suffered an accident when he descended from a fire truck and slipped on a patch of invisible
“black ice” on otherwise dry ground.
Tierney v. Comptroller, 90 A.D.3d 1215 (3d Dept. 2011): The Third Department found that the
petitioner suffered a compensable accident when he slipped on a discarded piece of food that was
hidden from view.
Hofmann v. Comptroller, 80 A.D.3d 871 (3d Dept. 2011): The Appellate Division annulled the
Retirement System’s denial of disability retirement benefits upon finding that the administrative
law judge unfairly declined to consider evidence that favored the petitioner.
Lipsky v. Comptroller, 56 A.D.3d 1101 (3d Dept. 2008): The Appellate Division found that the
petitioner was improperly denied disability retirement benefits based on a two-minute
examination by an “independent” doctor.
Why Work With Us
Personalized service tailored to your unique needs.
Experienced professionals dedicated to your success.
Frequently Asked Questions
Please reach us at edelsteinparalegal@gmail.com if you cannot find an answer to your question.
Our firm uses a 2-step process. The First step is called the "Record Review." We charge a flat fee based on the amount of pages in the client's record. The record includes the Trial Transcripts, which contains 1. Jury Selection, Trial, Deliberations and Sentencing; 2. Any Evidentiary Hearing (Mapp, Dunaway, etc), 3. If the client has already had his direct appeal, it should also include their Appellate Brief and the District Attorneys Opposition to it; 4. If the client has already done any post-conviction motions (i.e. An Article 440, Writ of Error Coram Nobis), these should be included in the page count as well. Once we receive the page count, we quote a flat fee for the record review. We provide the client with a "Record Review" letter, which is an easy-to-understand letter explaining what we found and our recommendations going forward. After the "Record Review" we give a final price for perfecting the appeal, now that we have read the record and have clarity on the amount of work involved. The amount paid for the record review is deducted from this Final Price. Example: If you paid $10,000 for the Record Review, and our Final Price to perfect the appeal is $25,000, a balance of $15,000 would be due to perfect the appeal.
Add an answer to this item.
Add an answer to this item.
Contact Us
Contact Information
Hours
Mon | 09:00 am – 05:00 pm | |
Tue | 09:00 am – 05:00 pm | |
Wed | 09:00 am – 05:00 pm | |
Thu | 09:00 am – 05:00 pm | |
Fri | 09:00 am – 05:00 pm | |
Sat | Closed | |
Sun | Closed |
This website uses cookies.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.