New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Whether you are issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) or you have been arrested in Manhattan, Brooklyn or anywhere else in New York, if you possess a controlled substance you may be charged with New York Penal Law section 220.03. This offense, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the 7th Degree, is an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and applies to such drugs as cocaine, crack-cocaine, heroin, extacy, oxycodone, etc. Make no mistake. If convicted of NY PL 220.03, you will have a criminal record that will not just go away. Even a plea to a Disorderly Conduct can have real life ramifications.

Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, NY PL 220.03, is defined as follows:

A person is guilty of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses a controlled substance.

Although the above definition is very basic, two things should be clear. First, it is important to note that this charge does not apply to marijuana related offenses. Second, there is no mention of a particular quantity or amount of the controlled substance that is needed to establish a violation of NY PL 220.03. The reason why the statute leaves out any threshold amount is because quantity does not have any relevance on this particular charge as long as there is enough to establish the actual presence of the drug in question.

The Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, has found that an unusable amount of cocaine residue sufficiently establishes this crime. People v. Mizell, 72 N.Y.2d 651 (1988). In fact, the Court of Appeals, referencing earlier and lower court decisions, stated that "[s]o long as the quantity is sufficient to permit proper identification as a controlled substance, amount is immaterial." To be clear...if the prosecution can test and find the presence of the controlled substance it is irrelevant that it was "merely" residue that you could no longer use or sell.

Although the amount is immaterial as to the charge of NY PL 220.03, if the prosecution can establish that the weight of the controlled substance was 500 mg, an eighth of an ounce or even greater, felony charges may be brought. Moreover, if the People can establish you had the intent to sell the controlled substance a felony offense may be charged as well. Obviously, these charges have much more significant ramifications such as terms of incarceration in state prison.

For further information on drug crimes and criminal defense, please review our earlier articles relating to constructive possession (when possession of drugs is not physical) and whether prosecutors need to provide a laboratory analysis at your arraignment for drug charges.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland, LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City region.

You have been arrested with a print out of checking account numbers or a list of maiden names of ten different people. Although it is crumpled up in your wallet, you had not actually used the information or attempted to use that information. Well, is the mere possession of that personal information a violation of New York Penal Law Section 190.81, Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information?

Pursuant to NY PL 190.81, Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information:

A person is guilty of Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Third Degree when he or she knowingly possesses a person's financial services account number or code, savings account number or code, checking account number or code, brokerage account number or code, credit card account number or code, debit card number or code, automated teller machine number or code, personal identification number, mother's maiden name, computer system password, electronic signature or unique biometric data that is a fingerprint, voice print, retinal image or iris image of another person knowing such information is intended to be used in furtherance of the commission of a crime defined in this

Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Third Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

Now that you have a general understanding, or at least definition, of the crime of Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Third Degree, you are ready for more legal analysis after the jump...

Continue reading "Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information (NY PL 190.81, 190.82 & 190.83) & Your Criminal Defense: Does New York Law Require the Use of the Personal Information?" »

Imam Zul-Qarnain Shahid, a New York City Jails Chaplin, was arrested yesterday after x-rays allegedly revealed he had three razors and a pair of scissors on his person when he attempted to enter a New York City Department of Corrections jail in lower Manhattan. Upon setting off an alarm, corrections officers allegedly recovered the razors and scissors from a bag held by Imam Sahid. There is no public information at this time whether or not he was scheduled to see a particular prisoner or prisoners. As a result of this alleged incident, law enforcement officials state that he is charged with Promoting Prison Contraband in the First Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 205.25.

New York Penal Law 205.25(1) sets forth this crime as follows:

A person is guilty of Promoting Prison Contraband in the First Degree when he knowingly and unlawfully introduces any dangerous contraband into a detention facility.

According to the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, razor blades would certainly qualify as "dangerous contraband." In determining whether the scissor is also "dangerous contraband," one can look to a test established by the Court.

"[T]he test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility's institutional safety or security." People v. Finley, 10 N.Y.3d 647, 657 (2008).

While this case is still in its infancy, all eyes will be watching to see how it plays out. Certainly, nobody is more interested in the outcome than Imam Zul-Qarnain Sahid, who faces up to 7 years in state prison if convicted after this most recent brush with the law. Previously, Imam Sahid served approximately 14 years in prison after a Murder and Robbery conviction in 1979. That being said, from a criminal defense attorney's perspective, one important, if not the most important, issue that prosecutors must face and will likely be raised by Imam Zul-Qarnaun Sahid is not whether the items on his person were dangerous contraband, but whether or not he knowingly brought the contraband into the facility or accidentally did so without knowing they were in his bag.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. The criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland, LLP represent clients throughout the region in all criminal matters.

According to reports, Joseph Graves, the boyfriend of Broadway actress Ashley Yeater, allegedly beat his girlfriend's yorkshire terrier with a belt buckle. It is further alleged that Mr. Graves admitted to striking the dog when investigators confronted him. Although the case has not been presented to a New York County (Manhattan) Grand Jury, Mr. Graves was arrested and charged with the "E" felony of Aggravated Animal Cruelty pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law section 353 (AML 353). If convicted, Mr. Graves faces up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in state prison although a mandatory term of incarceration is not required by law.

Not only is Mr. Graves accused of striking and injuring the featherweight animal, but the ASPCA's Joseph Pentangelo stated that he did not seek medical attention for the six pound dog until two days after the alleged incident.

While Mr. Graves and his attorney will certainly mount a vigorous defense, Manhattan jurors are generally not sympathetic to alleged abuse of an animal, especially tea-cup sized dogs that are not know for their ferocity. Mr. Graves certainly may have a valid and compelling defense and time will tell what strategy he implements.

Crotty Saland LLP is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the metropolitan area. Crotty Saland LLP was founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors.

Joseph Gullotta, a Queens fourth grade elementary school teacher, and Abraham Fox, a teachers assistant, were arrested and arraigned in Queens County Criminal Court after it was alleged that the two adults encouraged and permitted a nine year old and ten year old to engage in a physical confrontation. Both men are charged with two counts of New York Penal Law 260.10(1), Endangering the Welfare of a Child.

According to the Queens County District Attorney Richard Brown:

“When two fourth graders became involved in a verbal dispute, their teacher allegedly told one of the students that he should ‘take it out’ on another student. When parents send their children off to school, their teachers have an obligation to provide a safe environment for them.”

Although not a battle between "Mad Max" and "Master Blaster" overseen by a post-apocalyptic Tina Turner, the young boys did hurt each other. One child suffered from a split lip and the other sustained bruising and swelling on his head.

The Queens County District Attorney's Office press release details the incident further:

Two boys had a verbal altercation that escalated at the alleged encouragement of Mr. Gullotta. "When the two boys began grabbing each others' arms and shoulders and wrestling, Gullotta allegedly told a female student to close the door and instructed the other students to back up. During the wrestling match, [the first boy's] head struck [the second boy’s] mouth, resulting in a laceration and bleeding to [the first boy’s] lower lip and swelling and bruising to the top and back of [the second boy's] head. It is further alleged that though Fox was present in the classroom during the incident he did not attempt to stop the two boys from wrestling nor did he offer them assistance after they were injured.

"It is additionally alleged that despite the students’ injuries and Fox’s observation that [the fist boy] might need stitches, neither Gullotta nor Fox offered either student an opportunity to go to the school nurse until two school periods later, at approximately 11:10 a.m., when Gullotta allowed [the first boy] to go alone to the nurse’s office. At that time, Gullotta allegedly instructed [the first boy] to tell the nurse that someone had dropped a pencil and that [the second boy’s] head accidently collided with [the first boy's] mouth when they both bent down to pick up the pencil. As allegedly instructed, [the first boy] told the nurse the ‘pencil’ story and also voiced concern about his friend [the second boy] who complained that his head ached. It is alleged that the nurse told [the first boy] to go back to the classroom and get [the second boy]. This time, it is alleged, Gullotta escorted [the second boy] to the nurse’s office and instructed him to tell the same made-up story that he had told [the first boy]."

"The incident came to light when the parent of one of the students involved in the incident overheard them talking about it."

As noted above, the defendants are charged with Endangering the Welfare of a Child, an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. According to New York Penal Law 260.10(1):

A person is guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child when he knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old or directs or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation involving a substantial risk of danger to his life or health.

Although the two men are only charged with one count each for the two children involved in the alleged altercation, case law in New York dictates that the harm perpetrated by a defendant need not be directed at a particular child. Arguably, the defendants could face significantly more charges for the girl who was allegedly told to close the door of the classroom and for those that were "forced" to watch the incident. Previous entries address this issue (link 1 and link 2).

Regardless, despite the references made above a 1980s classic movie, if true, this incident is no joking matter and the defendants not only face real criminal consequences, but potential potential devastation to their respective careers.

Crotty Saland LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland LLP utilize their experience on both sides of the criminal justice system to work zealously for their clients.

The pertinent part of New York Penal Law sections 170.05 & 170.10, Forgery in the Third and Second Degree, plainly states that one is guilty of Forgery when with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, a person falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument.

Depending on what a person forges, the level or degree of the offense may be elevated from a misdemeanor to a "D" or even a "C" felony. For example, if the item forged is deed, will or instrument created by the government, the crime can go from an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail (Rikers) to a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison. Moreover, if one counterfeits United States currency, the crime can be bumped up further to a "C" felony pursuant to New York Penal Law 170.15 and is punishable by up to 15 years prison. Well, what about knock off handbags, clothing or other items? Assuming the buyer is not knowingly buying a fake handbag (so, forget the shoppers seeking out "deals" on Canal Street) and the person selling the handbag or other property is presenting it as the authentic product with the intent to defraud the buyer, can the seller be charged with Forgery for making the knockoff handbag or Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument for possessing the same?

The answer is clear. These crimes would not be applicable. According to a Manhattan Criminal Court Judge in People v. Vu, 161 Misc.2d 692 (NY Cty Crim. Ct. 1994):

"Although it may not be impossible to squeeze the counterfeit handbag...into this definition by means of enterprising, if tortuous, parsing, it seems clear that these statutes were never intended to cover activity so far afield from the counterfeiting of written instruments, such as contracts and wills, and so manifestly within the ambit of those frauds which the trademark counterfeiting statutes (Penal Law 165.70 et seq.) were later enacted to encompass. However broad the language of the clause concluding subdivision one of section 170.10 of the Penal Law, the terms and examples which precede it logically limit its sense and scope to prohibit only the alteration of documents of like type under the principle of ejusdem generis (of the same kind)."

Although not a Court of Appeals (NYS highest court) holding and decision, it is safe to say that items beyond the scope of a "written instrument" do not fall within the territory of Forgery. Certainly, other crimes may be applicable that are as serious or more significant, but Forgery will not be established unless the elements and language of the statute is satisfied. If the law permitted prosecutors to squeeze fake handbags into this definition (it was obviously tried!), who knows what new "forgeries" would be prosecuted in the future.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York based criminal defense firm. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland, LLP represents clients throughout the New York City region.

Tensy May Smith, a letter carrier for the postal service who has worked in the town of Pound Ridge (Westchester County), was arrested earlier today in a joint investigation by the Pound Ridge Police Department and the United States Postal Inspection Service.

After receiving numerous complaints of people losing debit cards, gift cards and other items of value, law enforcement set up a sting and executed a search warrant Ms. Smith's home. According to reports, the police allegedly recovered approximately $70,000 worth of stolen property belonging to residents along Ms. Smith's delivery route. Moreover, law enforcement caught Ms. Smith "red handed," when she allegedly was found trying to steal from the mail under the watchful eye of Postal Inspectors and local police.

As a result of the arrest and search warrant, Ms. Smith is charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 155.40). Grand Larceny in the Second Degree involves the theft of property that exceeds $50,000 in value, but is $1 Million or less. If convicted, Ms. Smith faces up to 5 to 15 years in state prison. Moreover, prosecutors will likely seek some amount of restitution of other thefts can be proved.

Crotty Saland LLP is a white collar criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City and the surrounding suburbs. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland LLP is located in downtown Manhattan near the state and federal courts.

A die-hard Mets fan and employee at old Shea stadium, Gerald Tacopino, pleaded guilty today in Queens Criminal Court for the misdemeanor crime of Petit Larceny. When sentenced, Mr. Tacopino was fined $500 and paid just over $800 in restitution. Mr. Tacopino was previously arrested after a search warrant at his residence revealed Mr. Tacopino had stolen 23 Mets security caps, three Mets security jackets, five Mets security shirts, three seat bottoms and one seat back.

District Attorney Brown clearly meant business when he stated:

“As the Mets played their final weekend of the 2008 regular season, my office and the New York Mets announced a zero tolerance policy regarding potential theft and/or vandalism at Shea Stadium. Apparently the defendant did not heed the message. His theft of Shea memorabilia has now resulted in a criminal record, the paying of more than a thousand dollars in fines and civil penalties.”

This plea and conviction has sent tremors through Yankee Nation as it remains to be seen whether or not all Yankee players and fans will be vigorously prosecuted for stealing the Mets' thunder for the past few decades.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Crotty Saland, LLP represents clients throughout the New York City region.

What only can be describe as a horrific act if true, a Queens woman is under arrest after she was accused of submerging her three year old son in scalding water. According to the Queens County District Attorney's Office, Regina Cooper came home to find her son had soiled his diaper. Ms. Cooper allegedly became enraged that the child was not successful in his "potty training" and began swearing at the child and stripping off his clothes. Shortly thereafter, prosecutors claim that the little boy was forced into the scalding water of a bathtub.

District Attorney Richard Brown stated in a press release:

“Despite the child’s attempts to get out of the bathtub and his frantic cries, the defendant allegedly held him in the water for a prolonged period of time, resulting in severe scalding over 21 percent of his body. The young child will be permanently scarred – both physically and emotionally – by the experience and the fact that it is his own mother charged with seriously harming him.” Furthermore, "[w] hen she finally pulled him out, his skin that had been submerged
began falling off his body."

Detectives arrested Ms. Cooper and she now faces charges including Assault in the First Degree as well as Assault in the Second Degree. The crimes are punishable by up to 25 and 7 years respectively.

Regardless of the potential term of incarceration that Ms. Cooper faces, all of us, regardless of where we live or what we do for a living, pray and hope that her son makes a quick recovery and is able to lead a healthy and full life.

Crotty Saland LLP, a criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, represents clients throughout the New York City region.

According to the Westchester County District Attorney's Office, Yves Archin, a home health aide working for a 79 year old woman who recently passed away, was arrested by Ardsley (Westchester County) detectives. It is alleged that Ms. Arching perpetrated Identity Theft and other crimes on an unwitting woman under her care who had suffered from a stroke. According to news sources, Ms. Archin not only used the now deceased woman's credit cards, but opened up fraudulent accounts using her personal information. As a result, it is alleged that Ms. Archin charged approximately $59,000 at stores including Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdales and Target.

According to various news websites, the defendant is charged with Identity Theft in the First Degree (NY PL 190.80). Moreover, Ms. Archin is charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY 155.40) for the aggregation of her alleged thefts that exceeded $50,000 and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (NY PL 190.65(1)(c). Grand Larceny in the Second Degree is a "C" felony punishable by up to 5 to 15 years in state prison. Identity Theft in the First Degree is a "D" felony punishable by up to 2 and 2/3 to 7 years in state prison while Scheme to Defraud is an "E" felony punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in state prison.

It is interesting to note that the Scheme to Defraud statute was amended in 2008 to include the defrauding of one or more "vulnerable elderly person." According to New York Penal Law 260.30(3) a "vulnerable elderly person” means:

"[A] person sixty years of age or older who is suffering from a disease or infirmity associated with advanced age and manifested by demonstrable physical, mental or emotional dysfunction to the extent that the person is incapable of adequately providing for his or her own health or personal care."

While I have not seen the complaint or indictment (if in fact she has been indicted), something is missing from the various reports. Regardless of the subsection, Scheme to Defraud requires that a defendant have the intent to defraud either ten or more people or more than one person. Although only one person need to be identified, at least two people need to be the target of the scheme. It may be that there is another alleged victim or target or that there is an error in the reporting of this offense or charging of this crime by law enforcement. Unfortunately for Ms. Archin, this potential error would only apply to the Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, the lowest level offense she is facing.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City region. Jeremy Saland, one of our attorneys, has extensive experience and training in Identity Theft related crimes having served in the Identity Theft Unit and Major Case Section upon its creation by Robert Morgenthau.

Regardless of the crime or crimes you are charged with in New York County (Manhattan), the arrest process or a desk appearance ticket (DAT) will ultimately land you along with your criminal defense attorney at 100 Centre Street...the nexus of all criminal prosecutions in Manhattan. 100 Centre Street is where you will be taken from a precinct or Central Booking for your arraignment before a Manhattan criminal court judge (on certain occasions a case is arraigned in the Midtown Community Court). If your criminal defense lawyer is unable to resolve your case at your arraignment, whether you are initially charged with a misdemeanor or a felony, 100 Centre Street is where you will return for the immediate future for court appearances.

Elizabeth Crotty and Jeremy Saland, the founding partners at Crotty Saland LLP, have walked the halls of 100 Centre Street and 1 Hogan Place (the District Attorney's Office that is attached to the courts) for nearly a combined 20 years as Assistant District Attorneys in Manhattan under Robert Morgenthau and as criminal defense attorneys in New York City. Our experience as prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys has given us a unique perspective having seen and worked in the criminal justice system from both sides. Although we can't share everything in a blog entry, here are some important things you need to know if you are arrested, issued a desk appearance ticket (DAT) or waiting for an arraignment in Manhattan's 100 Centre Street:

Continue reading "New York's 100 Centre Street: The Manhattan Criminal Court From Felony Arraignment & Misdemeanor Desk Appearance Tickets to Court Appearances & Your Criminal Defense" »

It is fairly common in the courts throughout New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx) for criminal defense attorneys to represent clients charged with Resisting Arrest, pursuant to NY Penal Law 205.30. While it certainly can be a legitimate charge, very often the police will add this charge on top of the original offense if a defendant merely "resists" by backing away, swinging his or her arms up and not complying with an officers demands. Do not be mistaken that the law in NY requires a fist fight or shoving to satisfy the elements of Resisting Arrest. No physical violence or injury is necessary.

According to Penal Law 205.30:

A person is guilty of Resisting Arrest when he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another person.

As addressed above, this resistance need not be violent. In fact, as long as one intends to prevent an officer from making an authorized arrest by engaging in particular conduct, resisting arrest may be charged. See People v. Blandford, 37 A.D.2d 1003 (3 Dept. 1971). Lifting an individual from a seated position who refused to be placed under arrest and carrying that person to a patrol car has been found to be sufficient to establish the crime of Resisting Arrest even though the defendant did not behave in a violent or aggressive manner. See People v. Bauer, 161 Misc.2d 58 (Watertown Cty Ct. 1994).

Another important factor one must consider when defending against the charge of Resisting Arrest is that the underlying arrest must be an "authorized arrest." In other words, the arrest must be based on probable cause either by observations by the officer, for example, or in connection to a warrant. People v. Jensen, 86 N.Y.2d 248 (1995).

Regardless of the set of circumstances, if you are confronted by the police it is usually, if not always, in your best interest to be orderly and "compliant." This does not mean you should merely let the police take advantage of a particular situation. At the same time, you do not want to escalate a potentially dangerous situation. In the event you are wrongly arrested or charged with certain crimes, your criminal defense attorney cannot only make the applicable motions to challenge the legality and sufficiency of the arrest and charged offenses, but he or she can explain to you the available civil remedies as well.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City area. Founded by former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland, LLP is located in New York, NY.