DEFENDANT NICHOLAS BROOKS INDICTED ON MURDER CHARGE IN THE DEATH OF SYLVIE CACHAY

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictment and arraignment of NICHOLAS BROOKS, 24, in Manhattan Supreme Court on one count of Murder in the Second Degree [1] in connection with the December death of Sylvie Cachay.

According to documents filed in court, on December 9, 2010, at approximately 12:30 a.m., BROOKS and the victim entered Soho House, a hotel and private members club located at 29-35 Ninth Avenue in Manhattan. A guest staying on a lower floor of Soho House reported to hotel management that water was leaking through the ceiling of that guest's room. A hotel employee investigating the source of the leak entered Cachay's room and discovered the victim's body submerged in water in an overflowing bathtub. Emergency medical personnel at the scene pronounced the victim dead at approximately 3:30 a.m.

The Office of Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York ruled that the cause of death was neck compression and drowning, and the manner of death was homicide.

Assistant District Attorneys Jordan Arnold and Rachana Pathak are handling the prosecution of this case under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney William Mahoney, Chief of Trial Bureau 60; Assistant District Attorney Ann Prunty, Counsel to the Trial Division; Assistant District Attorney John Irwin, Deputy Chief of the Trial Division; and Executive Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo, Chief of the Trial Division.

Defendant Information:

NICHOLAS BROOKS, D.O.B. 02/08/1986
New York, NY

Charge:

Murder in the Second Degree, a class A felony, one count

A class A felony is punishable by up to 25 years to life in prison.

Comments

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...

New York Paralegal Blog

Search This Blog