Mr. Mitev's litigation experience spans across the state trial courts, appellate divisions, and Federal courts. He has successfully tried cases and conducted hearings in District, County, Family and Supreme Court, argued appellate division causes, as well as successfully represented clients at hearings before various administrative agencies.
His published cases include Malone v. County of Suffolk, a precedent-setting case holding that doctors who knowingly over-prescribe narcotics create a public nuisance and may be liable to the public at large; Schulz v. Schulz, holding that a parent who relocates without court permission may not thereafter rely on the self-created change in circumstances in a subsequent relocation petition; Boyle v. County of Suffolk, a Federal case dealing with forfeiture proceedings against drivers accused of drunk driving in Suffolk County, Grasso v. Grasso, an Appellate Division, Second Department case dealing with post – judgment matrimonial counsel fees, People v. McElroy, a case dealing with post-conviction supervision of sex offenders under the SORA law and the anomalous results imposed by sentencing guidelines in certain circumstances; People v. Syska, re-affirming the basic Constitutional principle that there is no duty to answer a police officer’s questions (other than basic ID information) and that asking police if they have a warrant is not sufficient for an obstruction of justice/resisting arrest charge.
Mr. Mitev’s work has been cited in the Journal of Law & Policy; the New York Practice Series; the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review; Patent Law Fundamentals; Florida Coastal Law Review; eDiscovery for Corporate Counsel; Northwestern University Law Review; the Touro Law Review, among others. He is admitted to the United States Supreme Court and in the Federal Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.
We have not found any instances of professional misconduct for this lawyer.