MI C HAEL G.

DOWD
N I ALL MACGIOLLABHU(-
-ADMITTED A S SOLIC I TOR ,
REPUBLI C O F I R ELAN D
Hon. Mark Dwyer
Kings Count y Supreme Court , Criminal Term
320 Jay Street
Brookl yn, NY 11201
425 P ARK AVENUE, 26
T
" FLO O R
NEW YORK , NEW YORK 10 0 2 2
TELEPHONE (212J 751 - 1640 FAX 12 121 872-1 777
www.mgdowdlaw.com
July 1,2014
Re: People v. Baruch Lebovits
Ind. No. 11393/2008
Dear Justice Dwyer:
I write to you in connection with sentencing in the above matter, presently
scheduled to take place on Jul y 9, 2014. In particular, I write to you on behalf of
, one of the many victims of Baruch Lebovits.
I-laving read the plea minutes from May 16,2014, I note that Lebovits was
promi sed a sentence of two years by the Court , with the proviso that "if for any reason on
sentencing date I can't do that , I would just give [the] plea back and it would be like this
never happened." I further note that the basis of the promi sed sentence was the Court ' s
inqui ry into prison sentences "for peopl e convicted of E-felony sex crimes over the last half
dozen years," and the information it received that "the mean sentence after a guilty plea _
has been about two years."
Granted, Lebovits has pled guilt y to E-felony sex crimes. However, as I have
set forth in my submission to the Department of Probation (a copy of which is enclosed
herewith) , his plea represent s onl y a small part of his long history as a serial rapist and abuser
of children in my client ' s community. It also does not account for the other complainant on
this Indictment, whose cooperation with the prosecution ended by means of intimidation and
briber y carr ied out on behalf of Lebovi ts. Nor does it account for the complainant in the
related Indictment , No. 2600/2008 - namely, my client - whose case was surreptitiously
dismissed as a result of fabricat ed allegations against his father and wholesale corruption of
the criminal justice process. These last two matters are presentl y the subj ect of separate
investigati ons by the District Attorney.
As an aside, I also note from the plea minute s that counsel for Lebovits
continues to peddle the now thoroughly discredited nonsense that my client ' s father, Sam
N
u
c
h
e
m
'
s

B
l
o
g
Hon. Mark Dwyer
Kings County Supreme Court, Criminal Term
Jul y 1, 2014
Page 2 of3
Kellner, engaged in an extorti on plot. He docs so despite dismissal of the Kellner case
because his client' s son, Meyer Lebovits, was found to have provided perjured Grand Jury
testimony and because the other witness agai nst Kellner, (the other
complainant on the present Indictment), was found to have been intimidated and bribed into
ending his cooperation with the prosecution and later falsely implicating Kellner. Once
again, there is supposed to be a "smoking gun" tape record ing. At last count, this is the third
such tape. The fi rst "smoking gun" tape, once fully translated from Yiddish, in fact exposed
Meyer Lebovits' s perjury. The second tape, announced dramatic ally on March 7, 2014,
when counsel for Lebovits made an unsuccessful attempt to stop dismissal of the Kellner
case and promi sed to publish its contents, has not been heard of since. (Incidentally, that
same day, counsel for Lebovit s, in front of various reporters - http://www.nytimes.com
/2014/03/ II / nyregionlaft er-seeing-hi s-fami ly-crumble-vindicated-whistle-blower-has-little-
to-smile-about.html - threat ened that if I continued my advocacy on behalf of the Kellner
family, he would bring forth yet another "smoking gun" tape in which I supposedly talked
about making a witness "disappear," only to sheepishly concede in a conversation with Mr.
Dowd of my office a few days later, after I told him to go ahead and publish it, that he made
it up.) Regarding the most recent "smoking gun" tape - i.e. a fake documentary on
Rubinstein' s life for which he was flown by Lebovits to Florida and plied with drugs -
counsel for Lebovits made reference in court to Rubinstein's repetit ion of the false
allegations he heard concerning Kellner. He conveniently omits Rubinstein' s response to
these allegations: When asked whether Kellner ever tried to "shut him up," or offe r him
money to drop the case, Rubinstein responds, "No ... [Kellner] always told me, [Rubinstein],
go to court , you' re going to tell the truth, tell the truth." Kellner, he says, "let me go the
truthful way. I proceeded truthfully and honestly." At this stage, it is less a matter of what is
smoking, and more a matter of what is being smoked in order to believe that anyone
continues to take seriously what is tired and empty bravado (from a defense terri lied to go to
trial even with a successfully paid-offcompl ainant).
Returning to the matter at hand, it is well establ ished that, "i n reaching a
sentencing determination, the court may consider not onl y prior offenses for which the
defendant was convicted, but even ofTenses for which he had not been convicted" People v.
Whitehead, 46 A.D.3d 715, 716, 848 N.Y.S.2d 657 (2nd Dept. 2007) (quoting People v.
Khan, 146 A.D.2d 806, 807, 537 N.Y.S.2d 284 (2nd Dept. 1989); see also People v.
Gonzalez, 242 A.D.2d 306, 307, 661 N.Y.S.2d 50 (2nd Dept. 2009) (citations omitted) ("It
[is] within the court' s discretion to consider the defendant' s prior criminal history, including
crimes lor which he has never been tried or convicted, as long as the information regarding
such crimes was reliable and accurate.") ,
This Court may of course conclude that the information regarding Lebovits' s
other criminal activity is not sufficiently reliable and accurate to affect the sentence it
ultimately imposes. However, the District Attorne y has a dut y to place this information
before the Court and the Court, I respectfully submit, has a dut y to consider it in advance of
sentence.
N
u
c
h
e
m
'
s

B
l
o
g
Hon. Mark Dwyer
Kings County Supreme Court, Criminal Term
July 1, 2014
Page 3 of3
This case does not merely implicate the interests of Lebovits and the
remaining complainant, Rubinstein. It impl icates the interests of society. Society has an
interest in making sure that the sentence imposed on a serial predator and rapist of children
follows due consideration of all relevant circumstances. Society has a furt her interest in
making sure that such a person is not allowed to abuse another child. It should be borne in
mind that the previous pre-sentence report in this case documented Lebovits's gambling
addiction - in other words, his lack of impulse control. Releasing him back into the
community in a few short months, flush with his evasion of j ustice, carries grave risks for the
children of my client' s community. Their futures are not to be gambled with.
Ultimately, I ask only for the Court to ensure that all relevant information is
placed before it; once considered, I submit, it will find that the currentl y promi sed sentence is
woefully inadequat e. The Court pointed out at the conclusion of Lebovits' s plea that this
case is one of substantial publ ic interest. That justice be done, and seen to be done, is of
momentous importance in my client' s community. If Baruch Lebovits is allowed to evade
j ustice, other pedophi les in the community and their enablers will be emboldened, more
innocent chi ldren will be raped and abused, and they and their famili es will be even more
scared than before to come forward and cooperate with law enforcement. If my client and
the other children that have been abused by Baruch Lebovit s came from a different
community, there is no doubt that he would be spending the rest of this life in prison.
However, coming from Borough Park and not Park Slope does not make them the chi ldren of
a lesser God. It does not make them less deserving of j ustice.
I thank the Court for its attention to these matters.
Respectfully,
V
Niall
Encl.
cc: ADA Anna-Sigga Nicolazzi, Esq.
Arthur Aidala, Esq.
N
u
c
h
e
m
'
s

B
l
o
g