Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, Attorneys at Law
Myron Beldock
Myron Beldock graduated from Erasmus Hall High School in 1946, Hamilton College in 1950 and Harvard Law School in 1958. He served in the U.S. Army from 1951 to 1954 and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York from 1958 to 1960. After several years as an associate with a small New York City firm and as a single practitioner, he brought together two friends and former Assistant U.S. Attorneys, Elliot Hoffman and Larry Levine, to form Beldock Levine & Hoffman in 1964. He is best described, by his own definition, as an old-time general practitioner. He concentrates on trial and appellate litigation, in state and federal courts, in defense of criminal charges and in pursuing plaintiffs’ civil rights actions based on police and prosecutorial misconduct and employer and governmental discrimination. He regularly consults and defends charges of professional discipline. He represents plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of personal and business related matters, working with others in the firm’s various practice areas.
Carrying on the firm’s original and continuing objective of successful practice combined with public service, he has represented numerous persons who have suffered from unfair treatment or unjust charges, frequently on a pro bono basis. He has served as post-conviction counsel seeking new trials and/or parole release in violent felony cases, predominantly homicides. Spanning over four decades, some cases, involving George Whitmore, Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, Darryl King, Albert Victory and Yusef Salaam, have been widely publicized as well as the subject of books and films.
A relentless worker, Mr. Beldock still enjoys life’s human comedies and sometimes manages to break away to sing and play jazz drums.
Practice Areas
Civil Rights, Professional Responsibility and Legal Ethics, International Human Rights, Criminal Defense
Education
Hamilton College (B.A., 1950)Maryland University School of Foreign Studies and Sorbonne University (1950-51)
Harvard University (LL.B., 1958)
Bar Admissions
Admitted to bar, 1958, New York; 1960, U.S. District Court, Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit; 1973, U.S. Supreme Court; 1981, U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York; 1992, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; 2002, U.S. District Court, Western District of New York.Professional Activities
Assistant U.S. Attorney, Eastern District of New York, 1958-1960Director and Vice President - Brotherhood-In-Action, Inc., 1972/1973-2006
Director, The Brookdale Revolving Fund, Inc., 1973-1976
Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Member, Special Committee on Penology, 1974-1980; Member, Committee on the Judiciary, 2000-2003; Member, Council on Criminal Justice, 2004 - )
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; New York Criminal Bar Association; Kings County Criminal Bar Association; National Lawyers Guild; New York State Bar Association; New York County Lawyers Association; Brooklyn Bar Association.
Representative Cases
People v. Wise, Richardson, McCray, Salaam & Santana, 194 Misc.2d 481, 752 N.Y.S.2d 837 (N.Y. Co. 2002) (Newly discovered evidence results in dismissal of criminal charges against Yusef Salaam and other defendants in "Central Park Jogger" case ten years after conviction).
Busch v. City of New York, et al., 224 F.R.D. 81 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (Section 1983 action against police officers alleging excessive force in deadly shooting; new trial for plaintiff estate to prevent manifest injustice when jury verdict against weight of evidence).
People v. Gurley, 197 A.D.2d 534, 602 N.Y.S.2d 184 (2nd Dept. 1993) (Previously undisclosed and newly discovered police ballistics report warrants vacating murder conviction after over 22 years in prison).
Skibo v City of New York/Taylor v. City of New York, 109 F.R.D. 58 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (Granting extensive discovery in two police misconduct civil rights actions - IAD procedure manual, internal evaluations of IAD effectiveness and 150 civilian complaint reports in each of two precincts over five years; rejecting self critical analysis and executive privilege claims).
U.S. v. Freeman, 498 F.2d 569 (2d Cir. 1974) (Reversing conviction after non-jury trial and holding that guilt for conspiracy to import cocaine and for counts of importation, possession and distribution with intent to sell could not be based on efforts to conceal several conspirators after conspiracy had miscarried).
State v. Carter, 69 N.J. 420, 354 A.2d 627 (1976) (Reversing 1967 triple murder convictions on Brady grounds due to suppression of evidence impeaching eyewitness testimony and prosecution's knowing use of false testimony); State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86, 139, 449 A.2d 1280, 1309 (1981) (Four to three decision upholding 1977 second trial convictions); Carter v. Rafferty, 621 F. Supp. 5332 (D.C.N.J. 1985) (Sarokin, J.: Granting habeas corpus writ and vacating 1977 conviction due to prosecution withholding material evidence and misrepresenting result of polygraph testimony of the only testifying eyewitness and contention of racial motivation for shooting death of Caucasian males by African Americans based on defendants' race without evidence of racial animosity), aff'd. 826 F.2d 1288 (3rd Cir. 1987) (Due process Brady grounds sufficient, without considering racial motivation prejudice issues).
King v. New York State Division of Parole, 190 A.D.2d 423, 598 N.Y.S.2d 245 (1st Dept. 1993) (Denial of parole improper where solely based on felony murder shooting victim being off-duty police officer and where parole commissioner considered factors outside those statutorily authorized - including penal philosophy, historical treatment of individuals convicted of murder, death penalty, life imprisonment without parole, and consequences to society - in an attempt to determine appropriate penalty for murder; board should fairly consider all relevant statutory factors and not re-sentence according to personal opinions).
U.S. ex rel. Whitmore v. Malcolm, 476 F.2d 363 (2d Cir. 1973) (Two to one decision affirming denial of habeas corpus writ; dissent based on trial court failure to grant hearing to consider newly discovered eyewitness evidence); (Rehearing en banc granted March 1, 1973 - parties to file briefs addressed to progress of Kings County District Attorney investigation); (Order April 23, 1973 vacating order denying petition for habeas corpus and dismissing appeal as moot); Whitmore v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 638, 436 N.Y.S. 2d 323 (2d Dept. 1981) (Upholding cause of action against police officers for misconduct and malicious prosecution and ruling that 1973 dismissal of the charges on District Attorney's motion was a favorable determination of criminal proceedings for purposes of civil action since it was based on discovery of "fresh evidence" which cast doubt upon sufficiency and trustworthiness of trial evidence).
