A New York City court has denied a motion by David Thami to reduce his bail after he was arraigned on new charges, including stalking and multiple counts of criminal contempt. This decision, issued by Judge Kacie A. Lally on March 19, 2026, is significant as it addresses the complexities of bail modifications in criminal cases and the legal standards involved.
The ruling affects Thami, who has been accused of violating a temporary order of protection by contacting his spouse, Carmin Thami, multiple times through emails and social media. The case highlights ongoing concerns about domestic violence and the enforcement of protective orders.
Background
The case began on February 8, 2025, when David Thami was arraigned on charges of menacing, unlawful imprisonment, coercion, and harassment stemming from an incident involving his spouse. Allegations included that Thami had threatened Carmin Thami with a knife and prevented her from leaving their apartment. At that time, the court issued a temporary order of protection in favor of Carmin Thami, which was to remain in effect until August 2025.
After his initial arraignment, Thami failed to appear in court on April 10, 2025, leading to a bench warrant being issued for his arrest. He fled to Brazil, where he remained for nearly a year. Meanwhile, Carmin Thami reported multiple violations of the protective order, including receiving numerous emails from Thami. Upon his return to the United States on February 26, 2026, Thami was arrested at JFK Airport and subsequently arraigned on February 27, 2026, on a misdemeanor complaint for criminal contempt.
The Ruling
During the arraignment on February 27, 2026, the court set bail at $5,000 cash or a $10,000 bond. However, after additional information was provided by Carmin Thami regarding further violations of the protective order, the prosecution filed a superseding information (SSI) on March 4, 2026, which included 83 counts of criminal contempt and new stalking charges.
Judge Lally ruled that the court had the authority to modify bail following the arraignment on the SSI. In her opinion, she stated, "The arraignment of a defendant on an SSI constitutes an 'arraignment' pursuant to CPL 170.10, rather than some other auxiliary proceeding." This ruling underscores the court's discretion in adjusting bail based on the severity and nature of the charges against a defendant.
Impact
This ruling sets a significant precedent regarding the authority of courts to modify bail conditions in light of new charges. It emphasizes that courts can reassess bail based on the nature of the offenses and the defendant's history of compliance with court orders. The decision is likely to influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly those involving domestic violence and violations of protective orders.
Moreover, the ruling highlights the court's commitment to ensuring the safety of victims of domestic violence by maintaining strict bail conditions for defendants accused of violating protective orders. It reflects a broader trend in the legal system to prioritize victim protection while balancing the rights of the accused.
What's Next
Thami's case is set to continue, with a trial scheduled for March 27, 2026. It remains to be seen whether the defense will pursue further appeals regarding the bail decision or other aspects of the case. The legal community will be watching closely, as this case may influence future bail hearings and the treatment of domestic violence cases in New York City.