"And were you present in the vicinity -- this is a separate matter, separate incident. Were you also present in the vicinity of 340 Whitehall Road, in the City and County of Albany, New York, on and between the dates of November 1 and December 31, 2007, and, while naked, knowingly have inappropriate physical contact with a child under the age of 17, whose date of birth you now know to be MM DD, 1994, who was also naked at that time, knowing that your inappropriate physical contact with that child was likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of that child? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: And, that is an accurate statement, correct? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is."
Rabbi Yaakov Weiss
Jewish Colonie posted the entire transcript of Chabad Rabbi Yaakov Weiss' allocution to one of the charges against him – in other words, the sweetheart plea deal Weiss got.
Weiss has been trying to conceal his deposition made after this in the civil suit against him. In that deposition Weiss admits to the child sexual abuse charges, and admits lying about them before and after his criminal case was pleaded out.
But Weiss' has now made attempts to supress that deposition while his close supporters continue to claim that was is really innocent.
Yesterday I posted an exerpt from that deposition.
Today I'm posting the entire transcript of the plea deal hearing.
I think the transcript shows that, at the very least, Albany County needs better trained ADAs and much better understanding of the damage child sexual abuse does to children. And it also shows that Weiss is guilty:
STATE OF NEW YORK
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
-against-
YAAKOV WEISS,
Defendant.
ALBANY COUNTY COURT
PLEA PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE: HON. STEPHEN W. HERRICK
County Court Judge
APPEARANCES:
HON. P. DAVID SOARES
Albany County District Attorney
For the People
BY: SHANNON SARFOH,
JASPAR MILLS,
Assistant District Attorneys
PROSKIN LAW FIRM
For the Defendant
BY: ARNOLD PROSKIN, ESQ.
LISA PROSKIN, Attorney at Law
ALSO PRESENT:
THE DEFENDANT
DAT E: January 11, 2010
JACQUELYN BURKE GECEWICZ; SENIOR COURT REPORTER.
ALBANY COUNTY JUDICIAL CENTER. ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207 (518) 285-8773
PROCEEDINGS:
THE COURT: This is the matter of the People vs. Yaakov Weiss. Rabbi Weiss appears here this morning with his attorney Arnold Proskin. Lisa Proskin is also present in the courtroom. The People are represented by Ms Sarfoh and Mr. Mills.
This matter is scheduled for jury selection this morning. We have a jury panel gathered downstairs ready to come up to begin jury selection. There has been some additional discussions between the attorneys and just now The Court. There is a revised proposal to resolve Indictment 31-2649 by a plea of guilty to Count 4 of the indictment charging the defendant with one count of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, in violation of 260.10 (1) of the Penal Law. Upon a plea, if there is a plea, I would put this matter over for sentencing to probably the first week of March 2010. I'll come up with a date in a minute. March 1, it looks like. All things being equal, The Court will impose a sentence of either – and it would be up to you to select today -- 30 days in custody, credit for any time served, and I don't think you have any time in custody, and three years probation. You would be required to pay a $200 surcharge and victim fee, a $50 DNA databank fee. Any Orders of Protection would be issued at the time of sentencing. You would be waiving your right to appeal.
The terms and conditions of Probation, Rabbi, would be set by The Court upon a submission from the Probation Department of their proposed orders and conditions, and then also with a written report from Dr. Richard Hamill or another professional in that field recommended by Dr. Hamill, if for some reason there is a conflict. Subsequent to your evaluation and assessment by the doctor or his recommended replacement, and corroboration of any information as deemed necessary by the doctor, including by means of polygraph or otherwise, and prior to sentencing, The Court will conduct a presentence conference with the attorneys and will determine the orders and conditions of Probation that would be included in the Adult Order of Probation.
Or in the alternative, you can select today before we proceed -- if you do, in fact, proceed – not more than 60 days in custody, three years Probation, with the rest of the sentence remaining as I just indicated regarding the first option. And in that event, if you elect to receive a sentence of not more than 60 days, it could be no days, it could be up to 60, it could be something less, plus some community service. It could be any variation of that, but not more than 60 days in custody.
Mr. Proskin, is that your understanding of the plea bargain?
MR. PROSKIN: Yes, it is, Your Honor. Could I just add one thing though? I explained to the Rabbi that he does not have to register as a Sex Offender.
THE COURT: Endangering the Welfare of a Child is not a sex offense...However, if you went to trial and got convicted of the Sexual Abuse Third count or counts, there is two, that is a sex offense which would require registration as a Sex Offender and a classification as a Sex Offender.
MS. SARFOH: Just one quick clarification. The counts are actually Sex Abuse Second, which require registration.
THE COURT: Sexual Abuse Second. I'm sorry. With that being said, is that your understanding? (Whereupon, Counsel and Defendant confer.)
MR. PROSKIN: Yes, it is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ms. Sarfoh, is that the People's understanding?
MS. SARFOH: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And, Rabbi, is that your understanding?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you in agreement with this?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Now, in just a moment, I'll have your sworn in by my Clerk. Once that occurs, all of your answers and responses will be under oath. You need to keep that in mind so that everything you say here today is accurate and truthful. If at any time during today's proceedings you don't understand something or you have a question, let me know. I'll stop the proceeding. I'll give you a chance to speak to either of your attorneys or both of them, or if you wish, you may ask me a question as long as Mr. Proskin consents; do you understand?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, thank you.
MR. PROSKIN: Just half a second.(Whereupon, Counsel and Defendant confer.)
MS. SARFOH: Judge, in advance of going through the allocution, you're going to determine which he's selecting?
THE COURT: In advance.
MS. SARFOH: Okay. I'm just curious.
THE COURT: She asked whether in advance of the allocution. I don't think it makes any difference whether it's in advance or at the end, but prior to terminating today's allocution, I would ask the defendant to select, if you do, in fact, plead guilty, which of the two options you elect, unless you've already decided.
THE DEFENDANT: We have.
THE COURT: You have?
THE DEFENDANT; Yes...
THE COURT: Please raise your right hand, Rabbi, and I'll have you sworn -- affirmed.
(Whereupon, the Defendant was first duly affirmed by the Clerk of the Court.)
THE COURT: Are you Yaakov Weiss?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: You appear here with your attorney Mr. Proskin?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Did you hear me outline the options of the plea bargain just a few moments ago?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you decided -- and, first of all, do you understand the options?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
MR. PROSKIN: Just speak up so she can hear you.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
MR. PROSKIN: Sorry, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And have you decided which of the options, if you do plead guilty, you would elect?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE .COURT; Which is that?
THE DEFENDANT: The no less than –
THE COURT: No more than.
THE DEFENDANT: No more than 60 days.
THE COURT: The second option?
THE DEFENDANT: The second option.
THE COURT: Are you in agreement with that second option?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you, in fact, asking The Court to resolve this indictment by a plea of guilty to the Fourth Count of the indictment, a misdemeanor, a non-sex offense misdemeanor, a misdemeanor of Endangering the Welfare of a Child in accordance with that second option plea bargain?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And, again, Mr. Proskin, is this your understanding of the plea bargain and your application?
MR. PROSKIN: Yes, it is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: And, Ms. Sarfoh, is that the People's understanding?
MS. SARFOH: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, Rabbi Weiss, do you understand, sir that, you have an absolute right to remain silent in the face of the charges pending against you in this indictment, but that if you do plead guilty here today, that you will be waiving and giving up your right to remain silent and, in fact, you'll be admitting to me that you committed a Class A misdemeanor offense, which is a criminal offense?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I am aware.
THE COURT: Have you discussed this matter to your satisfaction with your attorneys?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you had enough time to speak with your attorneys and with anyone else that you wish to speak with or feel the need to speak with so that you know how you will proceed here today with this proposal?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you discussed with your attorneys the strengths and weaknesses of The People's evidence against you as your attorneys view the evidence?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And, in addition, have you discussed with your attorneys any possible legal or constitutional defenses or affirmative defenses that you might have to the crimes charged against you in the indictment and specifically the Fourth Count of the indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you, in fact, satisfied with the legal representation given to you in this matter by the Proskin Law Firm and specifically Arnold Proskin and Lisa Proskin?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: In addition to Arnold Proskin, who stands next to you at this time, and your wife is present, is there anyone else that you feel that you absolutely have to speak with or have present today before you can proceed?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Have you consumed any alcoholic beverages, taken any medication, prescribed or otherwise, or any other drugs or marijuana, excuse me, over the past several days which are in any way at all interfering with your ability to make a decision today?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Do you have any physical, emotional, or mental health condition or issue that you're dealing with that is in any way at all interfering with your ability .to make a decision today?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: As you stand here before me this morning, sir, are you thinking clearly?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
COURT: Do you understand what you’re doing?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
COURT: Do you understand that you have a right to a trial by jury or by The Court sitting alone without a jury in reference to the charges pending in this indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And you understand as I stated at the outset of the proceedings this morning, there is a panel downstairs, that the Commissioner of Jurors just came in to say that the panel is ready to come up -- he just left, but he was just here -- they're ready to proceed. So you understand that you're entitled to have the jury trial that's scheduled to go forward today?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And do you understand that at such a trial - if we had the trial, that the District Attorney's Of£ice represented by Ms. Sarfoh and Mr. Mills, would have to prove every necessary element of a crime by proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction against you of that crime?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand that at such a trial, you have a right to confront The People's witnesses and to cross-examine them through your attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand that at such a trial you have the right to present evidence in your behalf, you can call witnesses to testify in your behalf, by subpoena, if necessary, and you have the right to testify in your own behalf and you can choose to do any, all, or none of those things?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand, however, that if you accept this plea bargain and plead guilty, that you have resolved this indictment, there won't be a trial today or at any other time and, therefore, you will have waived and given up those rights that I just described too you?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand that a plea of guilty here today will result in a conviction for a Class A misdemeanor just as if you had gone to trial and been convicted by verdict after trial of the same Fourth Count offense?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Is anybody forcing you, threatening you, coercing you, or pressuring you in any way at all to cause you to plead guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty here today freely and voluntarily?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Are you pleading guilty, sir, because you are, in fact, guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child as stated in the Fourth Count of the indictment?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand you're pleading guilty to a Class A misdemeanor for which the maximum sentence, not the plea bargain, is one year in custody and/or a fine of up to $1,000?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And do you understand that everything you're saying here today under oath and on the record -- it is being taken down on the record, obviously -- can be used against you in other future judicial or administrative proceedings?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand and agree that in consideration of this negotiated plea you're waiving and giving up certain rights that you have regarding this matter and the indictment, including your right to have any further motions made on your behalf by counsel? If any motions remain outstanding, you're waiving your right to have them determined, and you're waiving your right to have any further pre-trial hearings. And actually if we went forward with this, we would have a pre-trial hearing called a Sandoval/Molineux hearing, a pre-trial conference and hearing, which would precede the jury selection. You're giving up your right, if you plead guilty, to have that hearing; do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: In fact, sir, do you understand and agree that in consideration of this negotiated plea, you're waiving and giving up all of your other rights and remedies that are yours in connection with this matter and this indictment, other than as stated here today on the record?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Now, separate and apart from those waivers and in addition to those waivers, do you also understand and agree that as part of this plea bargain and in consideration of it, if you accept the plea bargain and plead guilty, that by doing that, Rabbi, you're agreeing that you're waiving and giving up all of your rights to appeal on all legal and constitutional grounds that you might have, and that your waiver of your right to appeal will include not only everything that has occurred in this prosecution through today, but it will be extended forward in time and date to include the sentencing proceeding and the sentence to be imposed at that proceeding, so long as the sentence imposed is consistent with the plea agreement, not the plea bargain, but the plea agreement. Do you understand that and agree to that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT; And I have handed you a written waiver of your right to appeal, sir (indicating). I want you to read that over or have it read to you. Once it has been read to you and you understand it, if you agree with it and wish to proceed, please sign it and initial the change in date that I made from last Friday to today, and hand it back to me.
MR. PROSKIN: Yes, Your Honor.(Whereupon,Counsel and Defendant confer. )
THE DEFENDANT: (Indicating.)
MR. PROSKIN: Your Honor, I have explained it to Rabbi Weiss. He read it himself. He fully understands it. It's his initials. Do you want me to initial date also?
THE COURT: No.
MR. PROSKIN: And it's my signature and his signature.
THE COURT: All right. And, Rabbi, is that your signature at the bottom in blue ink above where I've printed your name
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: and the typed word "defendant"?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: By signing that, sir, are you telling me that you have read it or had it read to you?
THE DEFENDANT: I read that myself.
THE COURT: Do you understand what you signed?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand and agree that if you do plead guilty, this written waiver of your right to appeal, together with what we have discussed on the record regarding your waiving your right to appeal, will be binding on you, your attorneys, this Court, and the Appellate Courts in this State?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And you agree to that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Mr. Proskin, to the extent permitted by law as Defense Counsel, so long as The Court complies with the plea agreement, do you join in your client's several waivers as stated today on the record and now in writing, including his waiver of his right to appeal?
MR. PROSKIN: Yes, I do, your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, Rabbi Weiss, if you plead guilty ,here today in accordance with the plea bargain that we .have discussed, you need to know that everything that is stated here today will become part of the plea agreement, and I used those two words "plea agreement" just a few moments ago relative to your waiving your right to appeal. You need to remain in compliance with the plea agreement in order to be assured that you receive a sentence within the parameters of the plea bargain.
The plea agreement requires that you cooperate with the Albany County Probation Department in their preparation of a mandatory Presentence Investigation Report. I need that report in order to set the conditions of Probation and in order to sentence you, and I need that by statute. So you’ll need to contact the Probation Department, let them know how to reach you, let them know who your attorney is and how to reach Mr. Proskin. Probably in mid February you'll get a telephone call to come in for an interview. You will need to participate in that interview and answer the questions and inquiries that are put to you by Probation truthfully and completely as they relate to this count of the indictment.
MR. .PROSKIN: Your Honor, just one question. I'm sorry. I don't have to wait until then to contact Dr. Hamill, do I?
THE COURT: No. And, in fact, I would contact Dr. Hamill -- I'm not going to make it part of the plea bargain, but you can't get sentenced without that so that would trigger a problem if you didn't do that. But you need to contact Dr. Hamill and set up an evaluation with him
MR. PROSKIN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- as soon as possible.
MR. PROSKIN: I will.
THE COURT: You need to come back to court as directed. Right now I'll put on for March 1, 2010, that's a Monday, for sentencing. If that date changes for some reason, you'll be notified through Mr. Proskin’s office. And you need to remain available to The Court. Assuming you get reasonable notice of any different date or time and you fail to appear, that could in and of itself become the basis for a violation of the plea agreement. And, finally, you need to remain free of any new charges or new arrests, new criminal charges, "new criminal charges" meaning criminal offenses that are alleged to have occurred between right now. and when you're finally sentenced in this matter.
And that's the plea agreement; do you understand it?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
COURT: Do you have any questions about it
THE DEFENDANT: No.
MR. PROSKIN: I think the Court may have -- maybe you're going to talk about it later, but there are Orders of Protection, are there not, pending now?
THE COURT: Well, that would be a new offense.
MR. PROSKIN They're going to continue.
THE COURT: They're continued, and I assume they're no-contact orders.
MS. SARFOH: Yes, they are.
THE COURT: So, I mean, speak to your attorney, but make sure there is no telephone contact with any of the protected parties, no indirect contact with any of the protected parties. And these are Court Orders, so even for some reason should someone try to reach you, cut off that communication and contact your attorneys immediately.
THE DEFENDANT: What happens if it's in the same room?
THE COURT: The rule of reason applies here. If you're in the room first and they walk in, unless it's something -- I can't pre-judge any specific situation, but if you're there and somebody comes in, like at a restaurant or some place, I'm not telling you to leave.
THE DEFENDANT: But if I know --
THE COURT: Then you don’t go in to the restaurant.
MS. SARFOH: Your Honor, however, there is the issue of religious locations, and there are multiple religious locations available to everybody involved, so if the victim is at – I just want to be clear.
THE COURT: Then I would suggest that maybe Mr. Proskin talk to you and you find your house or houses of worship that are acceptable to you, and then you let the protected parties know, or pre-determine what they are to make sure that there is not going to be a conflict. I'm just trying to avoid a violation of the plea agreement by an intentional violation of an Order of Protection.
MS. SARFOH: Absolutely.
THE COURT: But the rule of reason applies here. And notwithstanding maybe what you felt on Friday, I am a reasonable person.
MS. SARFOH: Just two other quick things.
THE DEFENDANT: I'm sorry.
MS. SARFOH: With respect to the places of worship, I'll discuss with Mr. Proskin where the victims attend and we can work that out
THE COURT: Right.
MS. SARFOH: Just because was unclear --
THE DEFENDANT: I don't --
MS. SARFOH: Let me just finish. It was unclear by what you just said, that perhaps the defense could make me aware and I should tell the victims not to go there. That's not your position.
THE COURT: No, no, I thought I had reworded that. I want you to find out from the people that you're representing, and Mr. Proskin can find out from Rabbi Weiss where he would generally go, and then work that out.
MS. SARFOH; There is one particular location that I'm concerned about, and I believe it's in Crown Heights. There is a number associated with it. I'm sure the defendant knows, 77 something.
THE DEFENDANT: 770.
MS. SARFOH: 770. That's a location that I have a concern about. I know that the victims do attend there for large celebrations, so that's why I wanted to make that clear for the record. The second thing –
THE COURT: And it's not necessarily that they can't go to the same place. It would be at the same time.
MR. PROSKIN: Before she goes to the second thing, this has been in effect for over a year.
THE COURT: And it hasn't been a problem.
MR. PROSKIN: There has been no problems.
MS. SARFOH: There has been a problem.
MR. PROSKIN: Nobody told me.
THE COURT: Not that I'm aware of.
MS. SARFOH: And I'm not suggesting that it's a violation. I'm saying they have been in the same location at the same time, and the directive, I'm assuming, from The Court would be to walk away from each other, leave that location.
THE COURT: Right. So I'm saying that if the Rabbi has -- once you get this worked out with Mr. Proskin, and maybe in writing is a good way to do it
MS. SARFOH: Yes.
THE COURT: -- if the Rabbi is allowed to go to a certain temple or place of worship and he's there first and it's not directly in conflict with 'what you have agreed to, then your people should leave and come back at. another time, or go to another place.
MS. SARFOH: What we probably should do is specify times.
THE COURT: I'm saying, be specific. Work it out.
THE DEFENDANT: The example
MS. SARFOH: We'll speak.
MR. PROSKIN: We'll talk.
MS. SARFOH: The second thing is with respect to the Dr. Hamill evaluation. That is a condition of the plea, yes, Your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. SARFOH: My only concern is any delay –and I understand that sometimes it's difficult to get in to Dr. Hamill -- but intentional delay. What would the Court's position be?
THE COURT: I'm not going to pre-judge what's happening. If I determine that there is an intentional avoidance of scheduling sentence, then I will deal with it.
MS. SARFOH: I just want to make that clear so it's on the record.
MR. PROSKIN: Your Honor, I will call Dr. Hamill today.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. SARFOH: Thank you, Your Honor
THE COURT: So there we are. That’s the plea agreement that's been, I think, substantially hashed out on the record. Notwithstanding the amount of wording that we just had from all sources, do you understand the plea agreement?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir, I do.
THE COURT: Do you agree that you will comply with the plea agreement?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I agree.
THE COURT: As long as you comply with the plea agreement, you're assured you will receive a sentence in accordance with the plea bargain. If you violate the plea agreement, you need to know and understand that then you could receive a sentence of up to one year in the Albany County Correctional Facility; do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: If there is any change in the sentence as a result of you having been found in violation of the plea agreement, you need to know and understand that you could not automatically be allowed to either withdraw your plea of guilty or to create some basis for appeal that you don't presently have. You'll recall that if you do plead guilty, Rabbi, the sentence is tied to compliance with the plea agreement, not the plea bargain; do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Other than the Court's intention on Sentence, which is the plea bargain, has anyone made any promises or representations in order to get you to plead guilty?
THE DEFENDANT: No, they have not.
THE COURT: Now, if you plead guilty and if I accept your plea, sir, you need to know and understand that I believe that I am as bound by your plea of guilty as you are, and what that means is if you plead guilty today and you change your mind and you come ,back ,and ask if you can withdraw your p1ea, I'm not going to let you do that unless I'm legally required to because I believe I'm as bound by your plea as you are; do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Have you given this enough thought?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Taking everything into account and into consideration, do you believe that this plea bargain is in your best interest?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.
THE COURT: Legally and personally?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And do you wish to proceed with it?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. I draw your attention to Count 4 of Indictment 31-2649. As I indicated, you'll be allowed to resolve the indictment by a plea of guilty to this count. This is one count of Endangering the Welfare of a Child, in violation of Section 260.10 (1) of the Penal Law. It's a Class A misdemeanor. And this count relates to a telephone call alleged to have occurred on or about June 30 of 2008 during the daytime hours at ### XYZ Street, in the City and County of Albany, New York.
Before I get into that, I'm going to ask you as part of this allocution, Rabbi, were you present in the vicinity of 340 Whitehall Road in the City and County of Albany, New York, on and between the dates of June 1 and June 30, 2007, and while naked, knowingly have inappropriate physical contact with a child under the age of 17, whose date of birth you now know to be MM DD, 1993, who was also naked at that time, knowing that your inappropriate physical contact with that child --
MS. SARFOH: I don't mean to interrupt, Your Honor. I apologize. You said "XYZ Street." That's related to the phone call.
THE COURT: I said that.
MS. SARFOH: It's not
THE COURT: Did I say "XYZ Street"?
MS. SARFOH: You said "XYZ Street" just now. XYZ Street is related to the phone call.
THE COURT: To the phone call. Read it back. (Whereupon, the record was read by the Court Reporter. )
MS. SARFOH: I apologize.
THE COURT: We're talking about Whitehall Road.
Knowing that your inappropriate physical contact with that child was likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of that child. Were you there? Is that an accurate statement?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And were you present in the vicinity -- this is a separate matter, separate incident. Were you also present in the vicinity of 340 Whitehall Road, in the City and County of Albany, New York, on and between the dates of November 1 and December 31, 2007, and, while naked, knowingly have inappropriate physical contact with a child under the age of 17, whose date of birth you now know to be MM DD, 1994, who was also naked at that time, knowing that your inappropriate physical contact with that child was likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of that child?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: And, that is an accurate statement, correct?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: And now going back to the substance of Count 4. On June 30, 2008, during the daytime hours at ### XYZ Street, in the City and County of Albany, New York, did you have a telephone conversation with the child you now know has a date of birth of MM DD, 1993, in which response to his request to you for advice as his Rabbi, teacher, and spiritual advisor, knowingly advise him to be untruthful as to what had occurred about the incident where you subjected that child to inappropriate physical contact between June 1 and June 30, 2007, in the vicinity of 340 Whitehall Road, in the City and County of Albany, New York, and advise him to, quote, "Just say nothing happened," end quote, and to not tell his mother or the police, knowing that this advice was likely to be injurious to the physical, mental, or moral welfare of that child?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: How do you plead to Count 4 charging you with Endangering the Welfare of a Child?
THE DEFENDANT: Guilty.
THE COURT: I accept your plea of guilty. I'll continue you released on your current status. You're going to contact Dr. Hamill's office ASAP.
You do need to contact the Probation Department by telephone as we discussed, and then –
MR. PROSKIN: Report to them –
THE COURT: Telephone is fine. And you do need to consult with your attorneys to determine an understanding regarding the continuation of religious services (Whereupon, the proceedings in the above-entitled matter were concluded, this date.)
CERTIFICATION
I, JACQUELYN BURKE GECEWICZ, a Senior Court Reporter, Unified Court System, Third Judicial District, State of New York, do hereby CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and accurate stenographic transcript of the proceedings, to the best of my ability, held in the above-entitled matter before the HON. STEPHEN W. HERRICK.