Inside the Tarrytown Courthouse: Man Won't Quit on AUO Charge, Pipe-Wielding Worker Argues Against the Details

Here's a look at some of the cases that came before the Village Court during its August 25, 2010 session.

Coleman Pleads Guilty to Petit Larceny

Queyanni Coleman of Brooklyn pled guilty to Petit Larceny on Wednesday.

Coleman was originally charged with Grand Larceny (stealing over $1000) when she was caught stealing funds from Tarrytown Honda, the place where she was employed.

Coleman was originally charged with Grand Larceny in the 4th Degree, a felony, when she was arrested on July 15.

A deal from the District Attorney's Office allowed Coleman to plead guilty to a misdemeanor of Petit Larceny. Under oath, she admitted that she stole nearly $2000 from the Honda corporation between May 24 and July 15, 2010.

She was ordered to pay $1,950 in restitution and a separate $200 fine.

Correa Shaping Up

Tarrytown resident Leudy Correa was arrested on July 25 after an anonymous caller reported that his Honda had crashed into another vehicle on Central Avenue.

When police confronted Correa, they found he was in possession of stolen license plates and three bags of marijuana. Correa was allegedly intoxicated at the time and had a BAC of .10.

Since his arrest, Correa has been taking the court's orders seriously and has been attending court-mandated evaluations and programs through Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities (TASC).

"Keep doing the right thing," Village Justice Kyle McGovern said.

Correa will be back in court on September 29.

Padilla Still Fighting AUO Charge and Conviction

Carlos Padilla is determined to be found not-guilty of Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a motor vehicle.

Padilla was arrested in early 2010 and charged with the offense. In a very odd turn of events, Padilla demanded he have a jury trial over the accusations, almost unheard of for an AUO charge. The jury unanimously found Padilla guilty on April 15.

But Padilla is still not ready to give up. He appealed the decision with a new lawyer on July 13. The District Attorney's Office opposed the measure on July 28, and Padilla's lawyer filed another reply on August 4.

Padilla argued that the lawyer who represented him during the trial had been suspended from practicing law. There was some debate about the status of the attorney's ability to practice law in the state at the time, but a representative from the DA's office said they were sure Padilla's lawyer's suspension went into effect after Padilla was found guilty.

Justice McGovern gave the District Attorney's Office two weeks to respond. McGovern will make a decision on the matter on September 15.

Pergola's Lawyer Tries To Argue Along the Fine Lines

Peter Pergola has been charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a motor vehicle and Menacing in the Third Degree.

Earlier this year Pergola got into an altercation with a co-worker on Orchard Drive, located in the Hudson Harbor development. Pergola allegedly cut off the other man in his car as they were driving out of the development. Pergola then got out of the car, wielding an iron pipe, and yelled, "I'm going to bash your f*****g brains in your c***k s****r."

Police responded to the scene and found that Pergola was operating his vehicle without a valid license.

On Wednesday, Pergola's lawyer argued over minute details to attempt to get the charges thrown out.

The attorney first argued that the complainant didn't properly identify Pergola in a written deposition (the complainant wrote Anthony Pergola, not Peter Pergola). McGovern said, given the fact that the complainant and Pergola had been working together on the site, there was no doubt that the complainant had meant to identify Peter Pergola as the man involved in the incident.

Pergola's lawyer also tried to argue that his client's crude comments made during the altercation were protected free speech. His lawyer argued there was no indication that the complainant was "in fear" during the verbal assault.

McGovern read aloud in court the words Pergola allegedly said the the complainant and told the lawyer that the "First Amendment does not apply to these actions."

In an attempt to throw out the AUO charge, Pergola's lawyer noted that Orchard Drive may not yet be considered a public highway.

Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a motor vehicle only applies "if you operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway while knowing or having reason to know that your license is suspended."

McGovern said there was no way to tell if Orchard Drive was a public highway or not while court was in session. The claim will be looked into and Pergola will be back in court on September 9.

Tarrytown Criminal Court is in session every Wednesday beginning at 9:00 a.m.