Skip to main content

DISTRICT ATTORNEY VANCE ANNOUNCES GUILTY PLEA IN BRUTAL ATTACK ON WOMAN IN HELL’S KITCHEN BAR

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., today announced the guilty plea of MBAREK LAFREM, 32, relating to an attack on a woman in the restroom of a bar in Hell’s Kitchen. The defendant pled guilty to Assault in the First Degree and Attempted Sexual Abuse in the First Degree. The defendant is expected to be sentenced on September 1, 2011.

“The attack on this woman was quick and brutal,” said District Attorney Vance. “The victim was severely and savagely beaten by a stranger. Thanks to swift detective work by the NYPD, the defendant, who had fled the scene immediately after the attack, was apprehended, and this Office’s Sex Crimes Unit was able to successfully prosecute the case.”

According to today’s guilty plea and documents filed in court, on March 11, 2010, at approximately 2:15 a.m., LAFREM entered the women’s restroom of the Social Bar, located on Eighth Avenue between West 48th and 49th Streets, and punched a 29-year-old woman numerous times. The victim sustained multiple injuries, including a laceration across her forehead that required multiple stitches, as well as a fractured skull, broken eye bone, broken nose, broken jaw, and bruising throughout her body. The victim was found by another bar patron lying unconscious on the bathroom floor with one pant leg completely removed and the other dangling off of her ankle. Her pants were inside out.

Assistant District Attorney Shanda Strain handled the prosecution of this case under the supervision of Assistant District Attorney Kerry O’Connell, Chief of Trial Bureau 80, and Assistant District Attorney Lisa Friel, Chief of the Sex Crimes Unit. Trial Preparation Assistant James Curley assisted with the investigation.


Defendant Information:

MBAREK LAFREM, D.OB. 3/26/79
Norwood, PA

Convicted:

Assault in the First Degree, a class B felony, one count
Attempted Sexual Abuse in the First Degree, a class E felony, one count
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