By Michele Evans / NYweeklyRecord.com / Date: 8/29/2026
Category: NYC Criminal Courts / Domestic Violence / Bail / Accountability
NEW YORK CITY, NY –
A Manhattan Criminal Court judge has upheld a new monetary bail order after prosecutors replaced a 26-count misdemeanor complaint with a superseding information alleging 83 violations of an order of protection and two stalking charges.
The ruling does not decide whether David Thami committed the charged offenses. The allegations remain unproven, and both the original case and the newer prosecution were pending when Judge Kacie A. Lally issued the decision.
According to the court, the underlying case began with allegations that Thami prevented his spouse from leaving an apartment while pointing a knife and making a death threat. A judge issued a full temporary order of protection and initially released him on his own recognizance.
The court said the complainant later reported receiving approximately 26 emails in violation of that order. Prosecutors alleged Thami failed to appear, went to Brazil and remained outside the court’s jurisdiction for nearly a year before authorities detained him at John F. Kennedy International Airport in February 2026.
The first complaint in the new case charged 26 counts of second-degree criminal contempt. A judge set bail at $5,000 cash, $10,000 bond or a $10,000 partially secured bond after prosecutors sought $25,000.
After prosecutors reconnected with the complainant, they said she provided additional emails and a 20-minute screen recording of an Instagram thread. The superseding information alleged approximately 67 emails and 16 direct messages were sent while the order of protection was in effect.
It also alleged additional contacts after the protection order expired and said the conduct caused the complainant extreme emotional distress, anxiety and fear. Those later communications were cited in the stalking allegations, not as additional contempt counts.
At arraignment on the superseding information, the court set bail at $10,000 cash, $15,000 insurance-company bond or a $15,000 partially secured bond at 10 percent. The defense argued the court lacked authority to increase bail because Thami was already in custody and therefore was not “at liberty” under the statute governing modifications of securing orders.
Lally agreed that the modification statute did not apply to a person already incarcerated. But she found a different source of authority: a superseding information replaces the earlier complaint, and the defendant must be arraigned on the new instrument. At that new arraignment, the court must issue a securing order.
The judge said the superseding filing was not a paperwork technicality. It introduced substantially more alleged order violations and new stalking charges, requiring the court to advise the defendant of those allegations and reconsider the terms governing his return to court.
The decision matters beyond this case because it addresses when a criminal court can issue a new bail order after prosecutors expand a misdemeanor case. It also underscores the tension between strict limits on changing bail and a court’s obligation to respond to a new accusatory instrument.
The court denied the motion to reargue, leaving the $10,000 cash and $15,000 bond options in place. The ruling said those terms were necessary to reasonably assure Thami’s return, citing his prior failure to appear, his time in Brazil and the additional allegations.
What remains unanswered is how the underlying allegations will be resolved at trial and whether the complainant will receive effective protection while the cases move forward. The court’s bail ruling governs pretrial release. It is not a finding of guilt.
Leave a Reply