Skip to main content

DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE ANNOUNCES INDICTMENT OF MAKSIM GELMAN FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the indictment of MAKSIM GELMAN, 23, in connection with his attack of a man in a subway train on February 12, 2011. GELMAN is charged with Attempted Murder in the Second Degree, Assault in the First Degree, and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree.[1]

Today’s indictment accuses GELMAN of attempting to kill Joseph Lozito with a large knife on a northbound No. 3 subway train between West 34th and West 42nd Streets. According to documents filed in court, GELMAN allegedly said to Mr. Lozito “You’re going to die!” before slashing Mr. Lozito with the knife. The victim sustained serious physical injuries to the head, neck, and arm, which required medical treatment.

The attack in Manhattan followed a trail of violence in Brooklyn on the previous day that left four people dead and at least two others injured. The defendant has been charged by the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office in connection with those offenses.

Assistant District Attorney James Lin is prosecuting the case under the supervision of Assistant District Attorneys Frank Fogarty and Charles Whitt, Deputy Bureau Chiefs of Trial Bureau 60, and William Mahoney, Chief of Trial Bureau 60. The District Attorney’s Office Investigations Bureau provided valuable assistance during this investigation, including Chief Investigator John Bilich and Consultant Robert Mooney. Gregory Garone, Director of Case Management Services, and Trial Preparation Assistant Elizabeth Hamilton also assisted with the investigation.

Defendant Information:

MAKSIM GELMAN, D.O.B. 5/31/1987
Brooklyn, New York

Charges:

* Attempted Murder in the Second Degree, a class B felony, one count
* Assault in the First Degree, a class B felony, one count
* Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree, a class D felony, five counts

A class B felony is punishable by up to 25 years in prison and a class D felony is punishable by up to 7 years in prison.



[1] The charges contained in the indictment are merely allegations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
3 comments
Read more

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more