ATTORNEY AT LAW                  

Criminal Defense and Children's Rights

Daniel Leddy has extensive experience in criminal defense, defending people against virtually every Penal Law offense, including high-level felonies such as Rape, Robbery, and Murder. His well-honed oratorical skills translate into dynamic, highly-persuasive jury summations.  Similarly, his excellent legal research and writing skills that serve him so well in appellate representation, also enable him to write compelling trial-court briefs. As a consequence, he provides terrific representation to individuals accused of crimes.

The defense of children accused of criminal wrongdoing or juvenile delinquency is especially challenging.  Just because a defense attorney may be skilled in handling cases in criminal forums, doesn't mean he or she is equally adept at representing juveniles. Mr. Leddy, however, has represented hundreds of juveniles and is thoroughly familiar with how to do so effectively. In fact, he represented a boy charged with Murder in the Family Court in what became a highly-publicized case.  His practical trial experience,  coupled with tenure as Family Court Judge, make him the ideal attorney to represent an accused juvenile.

Daniel Leddy's interest in children's rights has led him to represent youngsters in virtually every type of legal situation. Caring, compassionate, and thoroughly knowledgeable about kids' constitutional rights, he is ideally suited to make sure they are accorded the rights and respect to which they are legally entitled.

Appeals - Civil and Criminal   

Appellate Practice is highly-specialized and should be handled by an attorney thoroughly familiar with the field.  Daniel Leddy has very substantial experience in both prosecuting and defending appeals at every appellate level.  Here are some representative appeals that Mr. Leddy has handled from various areas of the law.

DISPUTED DRIVEWAY EASEMENT:  - [New York Court of Appeals - 2007]

 The owners of adjacent properties on Staten Island were in a legal dispute over the validity of a driveway easement.  After the Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled that the easement was valid and the parties bound thereby, Mr. Leddy was retained to represent the property owner who had sought a declaration that the easement was no longer in effect.  After successfully petitioning the Court of Appeals for leave to appeal, Mr. Leddy won the appeal before that court.  Here is an excerpt from the court's unanimous decision in favor of Mr. Leddy's clients on appeal.

"Plaintiffs contend that an easement may be recreated in a subsequent conveyance only if there is language evincing the encumbrance in a deed recorded in the servient estate's chain of title. Defendants contend that an easement may be recreated when the encumbrance is recorded in the dominant estate's chain of title and the owners of the servient estate have actual notice of the encumbrance. We agree with plaintiffs".

Simone v. Heidelberg  9 NY3rd 179

CHILD CUSTODY - AUNT v. NATURAL MOTHER - [Appellate Division - Second Department 1998 and 2002] 

In what became an epic child custody case, the maternal aunt of a 9 year-old girl sought custody of the child over the natural mother.  After the Family Court, Suffolk County, ruled in favor of the mother, Mr. Leddy was retained to prosecute an appeal on behalf of the aunt.  In that initial appeal, Mr. Leddy successfully procured a unanimous order from the Appellate Divison, Second Department, reversing the lower court order and directing that a new hearing be held forthwith. Here is an excerpt from the court's opinion in favor of Mr. Leddy's client on appeal:

"The Family Court made no determination with regard to the question of extraordinary circumstances, incorrectly interpreted the holding in Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys (40 N.Y.2d 543), and applied the incorrect standard. Accordingly, the court's determination must be reversed"

Koch v. Andres - 246 A.D.2d 596 (1998)

After the aunt prevailed at the new custody hearing, the mother appealed. Mr. Leddy successfully defended the aunt's custody order on that appeal

Koch v. Andres -  299 A.D.2d 411 (2002)

SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 - [U.S. Court of Appeals - Second Circuit  2004]

When a young Staten Island mother sought to bring a work-related sexual harassment claim against the City of New York under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the city moved to dismiss on the grounds that, since she was a welfare worker and, as such, a participant in the city's Work Experience Program, she was not an "employee" within the meaning of the statute. After the District Court agreed, Mr. Leddy filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd  Circuit which overturned the ruling and declared that the young mother was, indeed, an "employee" as per the statute.

"We conclude that the district court erred by finding as a matter of law on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion that plaintiffs are not employees""

United States of America v. City of New York 359 F.3d 83.


When an 11 year-old Staten Island boy was suspended from his Little League Team because his father, a noted cancer surgeon, was unable to attend a work-party detail on a specific date, Mr. Leddy brought an Article 78 proceeding in State Supreme Court to reinstate the boy.  After the trial court denied the petition, Mr. Leddy filed an appeal to the Appellate Division which, in an unanimous ruling, overturned the lower court decision and lifted the boy's suspension. Here is an excerpt from the court's ruling in favor of Mr. Leddy's client on appeal:

"Judgment reversed, on the law, and petition granted, to the extent of revoking the suspension in question, and restoring petitioner's son to full participation in respondent's program"   

'Paglia v. Staten Island Little League, 38 AD 2d 575 [Appellate Division - 2nd Dept. 1971]