Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree and Attempted Forcible Touching – Aharon Noe, an Update and Apology

Dear Readers:

As many of our readers are well aware, we do not take sexual abuse lightly. That said, we also have no intention of having a record of sexual abuse accusations and corresponding convictions be anything but accurate. Following receipt of a letter from Aharon (Ari) Noe’s attorney, received this morning, regarding possible claims for defamation for an article we published in 2016 we are hereby posting a series of corrections and a correction to the URL link in the article to which he refers, thereby removing the offending association.

The article was a re-post of a Failed Messiah article regarding a sexual abuse conviction against Aharon (Ari) Noe. We did not publish any false statements negligently nor did we publish a deliberate error, hence the correction. 

For the association, we are hereby setting the record straight, issuing this as a formal apology and are publishing the correct news articles associated with the case of Aharon Noe, including publicly available case information.

People v Noe (Aharon)

Annotate this Case

[*1] People v Noe (Aharon) 2015 NY Slip Op 50295(U) Decided on March 9, 2015 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on March 9, 2015
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Schoenfeld, Shulman, JJ.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,


Aharon Noe, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (James M. Burke, J.), rendered May 30, 2013, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of sexual abuse in the third degree and attempted forcible touching, and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (James M. Burke, J.), rendered May 30, 2013, affirmed.

As defendant concedes, his present challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction of third-degree sexual abuse (Penal Law § 130.55) and attempted forcible touching (Penal Law §§ 110.00/130.52) is unpreserved inasmuch as he failed to renew his motion for a trial order of dismissal at the close of all of the evidence (see People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]). As an alternative holding, we find that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence, including the victim’s credited testimony showing that defendant, without consent, twice touched and applied “sustained” pressure to her vaginal area over her dress (see People v Guaman, 22 NY3d 678, 684 [2014]). Moreover, upon our independent review of the facts, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348—349 [2007]).

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting rebuttal testimony that tended to refute defendant’s version of events (see People v Harris, 57 NY2d 335, 345 [1982], cert denied 460 US 1047 [1983). Even if some of the testimony was “not technically of a rebuttal nature,” the court had discretion to allow it (CPL 260.30[7]; see (People v Dennis, 55 AD3d 385, 386 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 783 [2009]), and defendant was not unduly prejudiced.

To the extent that defendant attempts to raise a violation of his speedy trial rights as a basis for direct appeal, he waived that argument by failing to make a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds prior to trial (see CPL 170.45, 210.45; People v Garcia, 33 AD3d 1050 [2006], lv denied 9 NY3d 844 [2007]). Insofar as defendant raised the speedy trial issue in his unsuccessful CPL 440.10 motion based upon ineffective assistance, the issue is unreviewable since defendant failed to obtain permission from this court to appeal (see People v Villegas, 298 AD2d 122 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 565 [2002]). To the extent that the existing record permits review, it does not support a finding that defendant was denied meaningful representation (see e.g. People v Baker, 14 NY3d 266, 270 [2010).

We are unpersuaded that the 15-day sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe, where defendant could have received a jail sentence of as much as three months. Given the illicit touching shown to have occurred and defendant’s prior criminal history, we find no extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Fair, 33 AD3d 558, 558 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 945 [2007]; People v Sturdevant, 74 AD3d 1491, 1495, lv denied 15 NY3d 810 [2010]).

Defendant’s challenge to the facial sufficiency of the accusatory instrument is lacking in merit (see People v Guaman, 22 NY3d at 684).


I concur I concur I concur
Decision Date: March 09, 2015


Former Political Liaison for Mayor Behind Bars After Sex Abuse Conviction

A Brooklyn man who had served as a prominent political liaison to the Jewish community for Mayor Bill de Blasio is now behind bars after a sexual abuse conviction.

Aharon Noe immediately began serving 15 days in prison after court officers handcuffed him during his appearance in a Manhattan courtroom.

He was convicted in 2013 on charges of sexual abuse after a woman said he fondled her in a Manhattan bar.

Noe’s lawyer criticized the judge and the district attorney for not allowing him to settle his affairs and have a proper goodbye.

Noe donated to the mayor’s campaign and also claims he introduced de Blasio to the businessman who helped fund the mayor’s trip to Israel last year.

A campaign spokesperson said the mayor will return Noe’s contributions.

Noe also must perform 100 hours of community service, and pay a $500 fine.



11 thoughts on “Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree and Attempted Forcible Touching – Aharon Noe, an Update and Apology

  1. 1)so why are you apologizing?if his innocence wasn’t proven?

    2)since you are apologizing, why a half ass apology? why not an apology with flying colors? like you did the accusation, and like you do all accusations against orthodox Jews


    • There really is no explanation necessary on this. We received a gmail from an attorney. We had considered posting it but did not do so out of respect for the attorney. We posted information that clarified the case. The apology was for the lack of clarification. If you find information proving innocence then please provide. To date, there is none. We found, however, a litany of information on Mr. Noe’s case and would suggest you hit “google” if you want more information.


      • there is actually an explanation necessary on this, the attorneys said from the get go that they evidence proving his innocence, you are not a court and they dont have to present it to you but since it seems like the court has ruled in his favor you are supposed to abide by it and correct your slanderous words.

        since when do you respect anyone?

        google doesnt have any evidence, they just post what he was accused of, and you know it


          • well it might be end of story regarding any headache you want to save yourself regarding potential lawsuits, but you still owe an explanation in the court of the conscious, and of course the court of god in which you do or dont believe in, why you are so eager to smear people and not so eager to acquit them.


            • Well… let’s begin with the last 2 words of your question, “acquit them”. Acquit whom? Who in this picture should be acquitted? In the court of G-d, that is up to G-d and G-d alone. We are quite certain that we will be judged accordingly and we can only hope that we have lived our lives to a worthy set of standards. You refer to “eager[ness] to smear people” We have no desire to smear anyone. In fact, that is quite the contrary. This is, after all, a voluntary endeavor. We neither accept money nor will we accept money and we are thus not profiting nor are we beholden to anyone. This is in large part an albatross, to be frank. And it is emotionally draining and forever unsettling. But, others who have come before us have been silenced by the very same people who you say we are trying to “smear.” Anyone interested in Judaism, the success of the world view of Jews, the State of Israel and our Jewish future should be doing the same thing we are doing. The hypocrisy of your consistent rebuttals is, in fact, astounding. Profoundly, however, your question raises an interesting response in the form of a question: “Why is there so much out there to publish on these pages?” If our fellow Jews were better behaved would there not be less to write? Would we not be better for it? Have you no shame?


              • you make no sense and you know it, acquit whom? acquit Mr Noe from your slanderous accusations, and yes god isn’t looking to hurt and slander his creations, you should do gods will and stop this b.s., unless you don’t believe in a god and you dont think there will be consequences from above for your actions.

                you sure are eager to smear people, this is what your are doing consistently, and yes voluntary, you suffer from hate, its a sickness, and its evil, you don’t need money to smear people, you just enjoy doing it, like millions of others who enjoy smearing people, the causes of which may vary, maybe it makes you feel better about yourself, or maybe you were hurt by someone and are out for revenge, or maybe its just a power thing.

                anyone interested in judasim the state of israel and our future should do the right things to make the world better, , and it doesnt include smearing people who haven’t committed crimes and creating trouble for them.

                my rebuttals are smacking of the truth and therefor you hate them, no hypocrisy there.

                i have nothing to be ashamed of with most of my fellow Jews, unfortunately thee are bad folks everywhere, im ashamed of you definitely, as well as of the people who have no conscious and consistently sander orthodox Jews.

                im not enjoying these back and forth debates, as i feel you dont understand the evil of your ways, maybe i shouldn’t respond going forward


  2. where is the apology?, you are stating the case and its in negative light, not anything which is the case recently where he proved his innocence, please clarify


    • Proved his innocence? Where did that happen? We are guessing that his attorney understands the context in which the apology was provided and that’s as far as it will go. If you would like to send information regarding his innocence, by all means, please do. The case we posted was pretty clear in its adjudication.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.