Skip to main content
Joseph D. Lento

Joseph Lento’s Legal Cases

12 total


  • Prospective Foreclosure of J.D.'s Commercial Property

    Practice Area:
    Foreclosure
    Date:
    Oct 09, 2014
    Outcome:
    Foreclosure Action Halted
    Description:
    My client, J.D., was behind in his mortgage payments on his company warehouse. The bank who held the mortgage threatened a foreclosure action to take the property. Through extensive negotiations which resulted in a payment plan agreeable to both parties, I was able to stop the pending foreclosure action. I was pleased to be able to relieve J.D. of this burden and he is again focused on continuing to build his business.
  • C.S. vs. S.S.

    Practice Area:
    Child support
    Date:
    Oct 01, 2014
    Outcome:
    C.S.'s demand for increased child support from my client, S.S., was rejected by the Court based on my arguments.
    Description:
    My client, S.S, a teacher, had been assaulted by students at work, was seriously injured, and could not return to work as a teacher. S.S.'s ex-spouse (C.S.) had a different view of things and demanded that S.S. pay increased child support for their children despite S.S. being unable to work while receiving significant medical care. S.S. wanted nothing more than to do right by the children, but it was my professional opinion that C.S.'s demand's were unreasonable considering the circumstances as I viewed them. Nonetheless, C.S. took S.S. to court to demand increased child support. My arguments to the Court were based on S.S.'s inability to return to work due to injuries and medical treatment and the Court ruled in my client's favor.
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. S.C.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Outcome:
    Nolle Prossed
    Description:
    My client was charged with firing a handgun into a neighbor's house because of a alleged dispute. Despite the conflicting statements provided by the two complaining witnesses who resided in the house, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office [DAO] vigorously prosecuted the case. The DAO filed a 404(b) "Prior Bad Acts" motion because my client, on an earlier occasion, had been accused of using a firearm to settle an unrelated dispute with a different neighbor. I won this hard-fought motion which seriously weakened the case against my client. Ultimately, through my dedicated efforts, I was able to get the DAO to realize that the complaining witnesses were lying. As a result, the DAO withdrew the case against my client.
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. S.F.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Apr 08, 2013
    Outcome:
    Not Guilty
    Description:
    My client was accused of a robbery of individual in mid-October 2012. Unfortunately, my client, a young man who was raised better and who nonetheless made a mistake, did in fact commit an almost identical robbery of a different individual in early October 2012 for which he was arrested at the scene. Being known to the police as a result of his involvement in the earlier robbery, the police assumed that he was responsible for the second robbery which was not the case. We went to trial and I called a solid alibi witness on my client's behalf who testified that my client was in another part of the city at the time of the incident. In addition, I presented evidence that the assigned detective did not follow proper police protocol in the identification of my client by the complainant and the witness to the robbery. The detective only showed one photograph to the complainant and the witness instead of a proper photo array (which would include photographs of the alleged perpetrator as well as other, uninvolved individuals). The only reason that the detective showed the one photograph of my client was because of his involvement in the first robbery. This was a clear violation of my client's constitutional rights and I made the judge well aware of the detective's mishandling of the case. My client was found not guilty as a result of my efforts on his behalf.
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. K.T.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Feb 22, 2013
    Outcome:
    ALL charge withdrawn!
    Description:
    My client, K.T., who had never been in trouble in his entire life, was charged with Possession with Intent to Deliver and related charges. Wanting nothing more than to continue his education and pursue his career aspirations in the financial field, my client was burdened with the prospect of a life-changing criminal conviction (as well as the prospect of years in jail and significant fines). It is true that my client had been associating with a family member who had a criminal past, and regretfully, this was the reason my client got caught up in an very unfortunate situation. Despite a misguided decision not to disassociate himself from someone who could him into trouble, my client was a decent young man. It took countless court appearances and countless negotiations with the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office [DAO] both in and out of court for me to demonstrate that my client deserved a second chance, but I do not take "no" for an answer when a client's life is on the line. It is not typical for the DAO to honor such a request, but by relentlessly advocating for my client, I was able to get the DAO to withdraw ALL charges against him!
  • State of New Jersey vs. A.B.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Outcome:
    All First, Second, and Third Degree Felonies Withdrawn
    Description:
    My client, A.B., a God-fearing, family man, raised his granddaughter like she was his own child. A.B.'s granddaughter reached her teenage years and found a boyfriend. The boyfriend left much to be desired and A.B. and his wife disapproved of their granddaughter's poor choice. After A.B. expressed his disapproval to his granddaughter, the granddaughter accused A.B. of molesting her. The Camden County Prosecutor's Office indicted A.B. with countless sex crimes as serious as first and second degree felonies amongst many others. I was able to poke hole after hole in the granddaughter's story which resulted in all first, second, and third degree felonies being withdrawn.
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. L.T.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Dec 01, 2012
    Outcome:
    Prosecution Withdrawn
    Description:
    Making headline news, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office decided to no longer call certain Philadelphia narcotics officers to testify in drug cases after determining that the officers' credibility was too badly damaged. Due to the aggressive defense that I took on my client's behalf prior to this information coming to light, I was able to get the prosecution withdrawn against my client.
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Penny Chapman

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jun 05, 2012
    Outcome:
    Negotiated guilty plea
    Description:
    Penny Chapman was accused of orchestrating the attempted murder of a SEPTA passenger in June 2011 which made international news. As much as this was a case that I wanted to take to trial, Ms. Chapman's defense was seriously weakened because of co-defendants' actions to protect their own interests. In addition, If convicted at trial, Ms. Chapman faced a total of 304 years in state prison and a $625,000 fine. Despite the extreme prospective sentence, I negotiated with the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office for Ms. Chapman to serve a 5 - 10 year sentence. Considering the circumstances, this was a hard-fought win for the defense.
  • State of New Jersey vs. W.B.

    Practice Area:
    DUI and DWI
    Date:
    May 16, 2012
    Outcome:
    DWI Refusal Withdrawn
    Description:
    My client, W.B., was charged with DWI refusal to submit to a Breathalyzer for suspicion of driving while intoxicated in Atlantic County, New Jersey. I presented medical evidence on my client's behalf and argued that my client did not "refuse," but rather, was incapable of submitting to a breath test which resulted in the prosecutor's office withdrawing the DWI refusal charge.
  • Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. L.T.

    Practice Area:
    Criminal defense
    Date:
    Jul 07, 2011
    Outcome:
    NOT Guilty of ALL Charges!
    Description:
    My client, L.T., and his girlfriend were accused of threatening to kill L.T.'s girlfriend's mother with a handgun. The reason for these accusations was that the girlfriend's mother was upset with the couple for something that happened previously and wanted to get back at them by getting them into trouble. L.T. and his girlfriend were charged with serious firearm offenses and related felonies by the Delaware County District Attorney's Office. We went to trial, and through my relentless cross-examination, of the mother, I made it clear to the judge that the mother's story was concocted just to get back at the couple. My cross-examination was so convincing that I won a directed verdict which meant that we, as the defense, did not even have to present our case. Accordingly, the judge had to find L.T. and his girlfriend NOT guilty of ALL charges!