Stephen Bilkis

Stephen Bilkis graduated from Touro Law School in 1997. Soon after he passed the bar exam of New York and established the Law Offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates. In over 20 years of practice, Mr. Bilkis has successfully represented scores of clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Westchester County, Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx, Manhattan, Long Island, and Staten Island in matters related to personal injury, probate law, criminal law, and family law.

Mr. Bilkis strongly believes that each client is unique and each case is different. His solutions are never “one size fits all.” He prides himself on listening to his clients, reviewing all facets of each case, and using his deep knowledge of New York law to come up with individualized solutions for each client.

Stephen Bilkis has been a member of various national and local bar organizations and associations including the New York State Bar Association, American Prepaid Legal Institute, the American Association for Justice, AARP Legal Services Network, and the New York State Trial Lawyers Association.

Stephen Bilkis and the staff at the Law Offices of Stephen Bilkis & Associates have well-earned reputations as knowledgeable and effective attorneys who fight for their clients’ legal rights. Because of this, the firm, its attorneys, and some of their notable cases or clients, in whole or in part, have been mentioned on several media outlets including CNN, CBS, CNBC, and ABC New York, as well as in the New York Times, New York Post and Newsday.

• Car Accidents

• Free Consultation

New York

Since 1997

Head of Law Office

Stephen Bilkis & Associates

Current

Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center

J.D.

10.0 Rating

Justia

AFL-CIO Union Privilege Legal Plan

Plan Administrator

Current

American Prepaid Legal Institute

Member

Current

New York State Trial Lawyers

Member

Current

New York State Bar  # 2842938

Member

1997 - Current

Union Plus Benefits for AFL-CIO Union Members Newsletter

Union Plus

Union Plus, AFL-CIO Legal Benefits Conference, Washington, DC

AFL-CIO

Gave yearly talks about employment benefit packages to the AFL-CIO Union leaders and members

Accepted Member

Writers Guild of America East

Q. Victim of identity theft used for fraud in divorce proceedings, seeking to reverse court ruling.

August 5, 2025

A: I understand how upsetting it must be to discover that your identity and signature were allegedly used without your consent in legal proceedings, particularly when this may have impacted both estate matters and divorce-related property division. In New York, forged signatures on court documents can constitute fraud and, if they affect the outcome of a case, may amount to fraud upon the court, which is considered a serious matter.

If you believe that the Affidavit of Sole Heirship filed in Queens Surrogate’s Court contains your forged signature, one step would be to file a motion in that court to vacate or set aside the order or judgment that relied on the affidavit. Under CPLR § 5015(a)(3), a New York court may relieve a party from a judgment or order if it was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct. Fraud upon the court is a basis for such relief and is not subject to the usual statute of limitations. You will need to present your evidence of the forgery, such as handwriting analysis, witness statements, or other proof that you did not sign the document.

Because the property at issue is connected to your parents’ divorce proceedings in Suffolk County Supreme Court, you may also need to bring the alleged fraud to that court’s attention. This could involve filing a motion to intervene or submitting an affidavit explaining how the fraudulent affidavit in Surrogate’s Court concealed marital assets relevant to the divorce case. Coordination between the Surrogate’s Court and the Supreme Court may be necessary, and a judge in the divorce matter may stay certain proceedings pending resolution of the fraud claim.

Additionally, you should consider reporting the identity theft to law enforcement and filing a complaint with the New York State Attorney General’s Office. A criminal investigation into the forgery could strengthen your civil claims and provide independent verification of the alleged fraud.

Given the complexity of challenging prior court rulings across two separate courts and the interplay between estate and matrimonial law, it is strongly recommended that you retain an attorney experienced in both Surrogate’s Court litigation and high-conflict matrimonial cases. They can ensure that motions are filed properly, deadlines are met, and your evidence is presented in the most effective manner.

This response is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult directly with a qualified New York attorney who can review your documentation, assess the applicable procedural rules in both courts, and represent your interests in challenging the rulings based on the alleged fraud. ... Read More

Q. Accused of shoplifting, denied CCTV, mistaken identity?

August 4, 2025

A: I understand how distressing it can be to face an accusation of shoplifting, especially when you believe it is a case of mistaken identity and have not been given an opportunity to review the alleged evidence. In New York, shoplifting allegations can result in criminal charges such as petit larceny under Penal Law § 155.25, which is a class A misdemeanor. Even if the police have described it as “nothing major,” it is still a criminal matter that can carry lasting consequences if not handled properly.

At this stage, you are not entitled to review the CCTV footage directly from the store. Evidence in criminal cases is typically disclosed during the discovery process after formal charges are filed in court. This means that if you are arrested or issued a desk appearance ticket, your attorney can request the footage from the prosecution as part of your defense preparation. If the footage is never produced, your attorney can challenge the prosecution’s evidence and may argue for dismissal if they fail to meet their evidentiary burden.

Mistaken identity is a valid defense in New York criminal law. Your attorney may be able to challenge the reliability of any eyewitness identification, cross-examine the store employees about their observations, and present your own evidence, such as witness statements from people who were with you at the time or receipts that support your account. If there are other customers who saw what happened when the store employee confronted you, their testimony may be valuable.

If the police have not yet charged you, they may still be reviewing the case or awaiting the CCTV footage. You are not required to speak with them or provide a statement without legal counsel, and doing so could potentially harm your case. If the police contact you again, you should clearly state that you want to speak to a lawyer before answering any questions.

Given the seriousness of a shoplifting accusation, even if you believe the evidence is weak, it is best to consult with a New York criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. They can advise you on your rights, communicate with law enforcement on your behalf, and prepare for the possibility of charges being filed.

This information is for general purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a qualified New York criminal defense attorney to discuss the specifics of your situation and develop a strategy to protect your rights. ... Read More

Q. Mistaken identification during an identification parade.

August 4, 2025

A: I understand your concern about the risk of mistaken identification, as it can have serious and lasting consequences in a criminal case. In New York, identification procedures, including what is sometimes referred to as an “identification parade” or lineup, are subject to specific constitutional and procedural safeguards to reduce the likelihood of wrongful identification. Despite these protections, errors can still occur, especially in situations where the witness’s opportunity to observe the suspect was limited or the lineup was conducted in a suggestive manner.

A mistaken identification can occur for many reasons, including poor lighting at the time of the alleged incident, stress or trauma experienced by the witness, the passage of time between the incident and the lineup, or the way the lineup participants are presented. If a witness identifies the wrong person during a lineup, this can lead to wrongful charges and even convictions unless the defense challenges the identification effectively.

In New York, the defense can file what is known as a Wade hearing request, named after United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967). This pretrial hearing allows the court to examine whether the identification procedure was conducted in a fair and non-suggestive way. If the court finds that the process was unduly suggestive or improper, it may rule that the identification cannot be used as evidence at trial. In addition, any in-court identification by the same witness may also be excluded unless the prosecution can prove it is based on an independent source.

Mistaken identification can significantly affect legal proceedings. If improper identification evidence is admitted, it can heavily influence a jury, even if other evidence is weak. Conversely, if such evidence is suppressed, the prosecution’s case may be substantially weakened, sometimes leading to a dismissal of the charges.

If you believe there is a risk of mistaken identification in a particular case, it is important to document any circumstances that might have affected the witness’s perception or the fairness of the lineup. This information should be shared with a defense attorney, who can take the necessary procedural steps to challenge the identification in court.

This response is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with a New York criminal defense attorney to evaluate the specific facts of your case and determine the best strategy for addressing potential mistaken identification. ... Read More

Lisa T. v. King E.T.

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Teri W.

New York Court of Appeals

Lohan v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Rodriguez v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals