New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

The experienced NY criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP can tell you that it is not merely the “John” and the escort or prostitute that may be liable for prostitution or a prostitution related crime. In fact, if you allow your premises to be used for escorts who provide “GFE” services and prostitution, you may be guilty of Permitting Prostitution, pursuant to NY Penal Law 230.40, even if you were never directly involved in the offense.

A person is guilty of Permitting Prostitution when that person, having possession or control of a premises which he or she knows is being used for prostitution purposes, fails to make reasonable efforts to halt or abate such use.

Although the elements of the crime seem fairly clear, the following bullets are decisions by courts over the years that help shed light on how the courts interpret this crime:

(1) A homeowner allowed an unknown woman into his home with an unidentified man. Without asking any questions of the pair, the defendant allowed them into his home. Two weeks later the defendant allowed another couple unknown to him to enter and stay in his home. Court found sufficient evidence establishing that the defendant failed to act to prevent prostitution and related activity. People v. Taliaferrow, 121 Misc.2d 307, 467 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct. 1983)

(2) Where a defendant aided and abetted prostitution on his bar premises “the complaint [was] not invalidated because it did not state that the defendant failed to make reasonable efforts to halt or abate prostitution. That neglect is fairly implied from the claim that he facilitated prostitution on his premises.” People v. Gilmore, 120 Misc.2d 741 (N.Y.City Ct. 1983)

(3) Absent proof that the defendant, a desk clerk at a hotel, was aware that the premises where he worked was to be used for prostitution, the crime of Permitting Prostitution is not established because the clerk knowingly rented a room to a man and a woman that he knew were not married. People v. Harris, 74 Misc.2d 707 (N.Y.Sup. 1973)

(4) “Where both supposed prostitute and customer were undercover police officers, there could be no actual agreement, offer, solicitation, or other understanding between two to engage in sexual conduct for a fee, and, thus, there was no prostitution nor use of hotel premises for prostitution purposes.” People v. Behncke, 141 Misc.2d 630 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct.1988)

Whether you are charged with Permitting Prostitution or any other crime, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP, are ready work with you to get you where you want, and need, to be.

Follow Crotty Saland, LLP on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

The NY criminal defense attorneys and founding partners of Crotty & Saland, LLP, have handled countless cases involving narcotics and drugs as both Manhattan prosecutors and as criminal defense attorneys. In the area of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia, Crotty & Saland, LLP knows that prosecutors can charge you for either possessing the drugs and paraphernalia or they can charge you for constructively possessing that contraband. In other words, while the drugs may not have been in your pocket, in some capacity law enforcement has alleged that you exhibited dominion or control over the contraband.

Recently, on October 30, 2008, New York (Manhattan) County Criminal Court Judge Elisa S. Koenderman in People v. Anthony Lebron, 2008NY032832, dismissed a complaint charging the above offenses because the complaint was facially insufficient. In that matter, the police arrested Mr. Lebron after they recovered eighteen ziplock bags containing crack/cocaine residue from a bedroom in "the defendant's apartment." Additionally, according to the Court's decision and review of the complaint against Mr. Lebron, "three large ziplock bags containing numerous small pink ziplock bags, four large ziplock bags containing numerous small clear ziplock bags, a scale, a glass pyrex measuring cup, and a white cup, all allegedly intended for use in the packaging and dispensing of narcotic drugs, were also recovered from 'the defendant's apartment.'"

Upon reviewing the complaint, the defendant's attorney challenged the sufficiency of the complaint because the prosecution failed to use non-hearsay allegations that the apartment was the defendant's. In other words, merely stating that the apartment was the defendant's apartment was a conclusion unsupported by non-hearsay evidence.

In agreeing with defendant's counsel and dismissing the complaint for facial insufficiency, the Court stated that:

The "officer's statement that the apartment was 'the defendant's' is completely conclusory (see People v. Dumas, 68 NY2d 729, 730 [1986]; People v. Rosado, 192 Misc2d 184, 186 [Crim Ct, NY County 2002]. Without evidentiary facts to demonstrate that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the premises, the sole allegation that the items were recovered from "the defendant's apartment" is insufficient to provide reasonable cause to believe that the defendant knowingly possessed the alleged crack/cocaine and drug paraphernalia recovered from the apartment in this case."

The Court further recognized that:

"In order to support a charge that the defendant was in constructive possession of tangible property, the People must show that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the property by demonstrating that he had a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband was found or over the person from whom it was seized (see People v. Manini, 79 NY2d 561, 573 [1992]). Constructive possession is established where the defendant has been found in proximity to contraband recovered from premises under the defendant's control (see People v. Tirado, 47 AD2d 193 [1st Dept 1975])."

While the Court listed some examples that would help establish constructive possession, it is important that your criminal defense attorney review and analyze the charges against you as alleged in the complaint. In such a case, if the prosecution fails to set for some evidence such as whether you provided the apartment as a home address to city agencies, you possessed a key, or you made an admission indicating it was your apartment, your criminal defense attorney should seek to have the case dismissed. Although the elements listed above are not an exhaustive list, a trained legal eye is necessary to make sure that charges are legally sufficient and the prosecution is held to their burden. In doing so, Crotty & Saland, LLP, will aggressively set forth the strongest legal argument to protect your rights, freedom, and liberty.

Computer crimes have become more rampant as computers have become a part of every day life from lap tops and ipods to pdas and even cell phones. As a result, it is no longer atypical to find individuals charged with computer crimes such as Unauthorized Use of a Computer, Computer Trespass, Computer Tampering, and Unlawful Duplication of Computer Related Material. Both Jeremy Saland and Elizabeth Crotty, founding members of Crotty Saland, LLP,served as prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and received hands on training to deal with these and other crimes. Whether it was representing clients in computer related matters as their criminal defense attorney, prosecuting targets for these crimes or taking classes in computer offense, Crotty Saland, LLP, has the skills and real experience to assess your case and mount the best possible defense.

In conjunction with examining the strength and weaknesses of the case, one of the first places to start an analysis of a computer crimes case is to go directly to the Penal Law. Section 156.60 lays out some specific defenses as follows:

1) In a prosecution for either Unauthorized Use of a Computer or Computer Trespass, it shall be a defense that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that he had authorization to use the computer.

2) In a prosecution for Computer Tampering i shall be a defense that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe he had the right to alter in any manner or destroy the computer data or the computer program.

3) Finally, in a prosecution for Unlawful Duplication of Computer Related Material it shall be a defense that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that he had the right to copy, reproduce or duplicate in any manner the computer data or the computer program.

Assuming any of the above defenses are applicable there are many questions still to be answered. For example, what constitutes "reasonable grounds" in your case or is there written or recorded proof of your authorization? Whatever the facts may be, it is in your best interest to retain skilled and experienced criminal defense attorneys to challenge the prosecution to their burden of proof and to maintain your integrity, freedom and livelihood.

An introductory class of criminal law in NY would likely teach any future attorney that if there is no intent to commit a particular crime that requires such intent, then there should be a valid defense to that particular crime. This could not be more true than in cases involving Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and Falsifying Business Records.

The first two crimes, Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, contain legal language that the individual have the "intent to defraud." Although not always a simple task or the correct way to defend against these charges if the intent is clear, your criminal defense attorney needs to argue, if applicable, that you never intended on defrauding anyone (WOW! That was easy!). While the analysis of this defense is simple on its face, clearly each case requires an in depth review to determine how to establish the lack of intent.

Unlike the crimes of Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, defending against a charge of Falsifying Business Records can be an easier prospect due to provisions in the New York Penal Law. Pursuant to Penal Law Section 175.15, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant who falsified the particular records was a clerk, bookkeeper or other employee who, without personal benefit, merely executed the orders of his or her employer of of a superior officer or employee generally authorized to direct his or her activities. See also, People v. Bloomfield 30 A.D.3d 151 (1st Dept. 2006).

The above section protects "pawns" involved in a greater scheme. That is, people who appear to be falsifying records but are doing so either unwittingly or at the behest of their boss without any benefit. This defense to the crime of Falsifying Business Records has successfully been used by Jeremy Saland in the defense of his clients. Again, while each case must be assessed to determine the best way to mount a defense, sometimes that defense is no further than the Penal Law itself.

A Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge sentenced Nixzaliz Santiago, the mother of 7-year-old Nixzmary Brown, to 43 years state prison today after she was convicted on October 17, 2008 for Manslaughter. Her husband, and the girl's stepfather, had previously been convicted for the same offense and received 29 years. In fact, it is Mr. Santiago that dealt the fatal blow after Nixzmary took yogurt from the fridge without permission. It is no surprise to this NY criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor that Ms. Santiago received a harsher sentence than her husband.

According reports, Judge DiMango stated to Ms. Santiago at her sentence that she "may not have delivered the fatal blow, but . . . it was in your power to prevent the effects of it...[w]ere it not for your failure to act, Nixzmary Brown would have probably not died from that blow that day."

Under NY State law, two separate defendants may be liable for the same act as accomplices even though there actual conduct or involvement differed. In other words, the "getaway" driver and the "stick up" guy at the bank may have had different roles, but they aided and assisted each other in reaching their common goal. While the law does not apportion levels of guilt, if they are both convicted, a judge has the ability to decide who is more culpable and who should be punished more severely.

In the tragic case of Nixzmary Brown, the little girl's death was the result of both of her parents' actions. Despite looking at them equally in the eyes of the law as far as their guilt, Judge DiMango overwhelming felt that the child's mother could have stopped the horrific event and ultimate death from happening. We can all agree to disagree on who is more culpable and argue that one parent's actions were worse than the other's, but there are a few things that cannot be disputed. Crimes against children are not tolerated at any level in New York and little Nixzmary Brown's death was appalling, heartbreaking, and a blemish for us all.

Your car was stopped in Manhattan after the police accused you of DWI. The police pulled you over in Brooklyn for Forgery or Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument because you had a fake registration or license. Maybe you were stopped in the Yonkers and charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon because the police claim they thought you had a gun. Regardless of the reason, the police now want to search your car.

The police can search your car in varying degrees depending on the circumstances. Without going into details as to each of those circumstances and degrees, a search can be made if there is an exigent (emergency) circumstance, the police have a search warrant, the driver consents, or there is contraband such as drugs or a gun in plain view. Even assuming one of these reasons are applicable, a search may be limited in its scope such as to you reachable area.

While each of the above searches are worthy of their own analysis, the one way the police search a car that will be discussed in more detail is by bring the vehicle back to the precinct and conducting an Inventory Search. These searches are not searches based on probable cause, a search warrant or an emergency situation. Instead, the argument or basis for these searches are that the police need to safe guard the vehicle for some reason and account for all property in the vehicle. In other words, the police are not seeking contraband, but are protecting themselves and the owner from any future problems relating to theft, damage, and security of property.

The unfortunate reality is that these Inventory Searches are often merely a means to conduct a full blow search of a vehicle for contraband where there is no exigent circumstance or search warrant. Therefore, in order to make sure your rights are not violated and that illegally obtained evidence is not used against you, it is in your best interest to retain an experienced criminal defense attorney.

In order for the courts to uphold an Inventory Search the following must have occurred:

1) The car must have been stopped lawfully.

2) The objective or purpose of the Inventory Search must be to make a list of the items in the car and not be an excuse or attempt to find contraband.

3) There must be established and written police procedures that were followed. According to People v. Galek, those procedures must be "rationally designed to meet the objectives that justify the search in the first place and limit the discretion of the officer in the field."

4) An actual inventory must be made of the items recovered (after all, the police are claiming their search was an Inventory Search!).

In the event that your vehicle was searched and you believe it was done in this manner, contact a skilled criminal defense attorney who can fight to protect your rights and seek to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence.

When representing clients in matters involving Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Penal Law §260.10 New York criminal defense attorneys routinely deal with a host of different facts and circumstances. Sometimes a parent's activity clearly violates the statute when, for example, the child is assaulted. Other times, however, the actions which rise to the level of Endangering the Welfare of a Child are not clear. Recently, on August 6, 2008, Judge Michael Gerstein of the Kings County (Brooklyn) Criminal Court, held that leaving a child home alone may constitute Endangering the Welfare of a Child pursuant to PL §260.10.

In People v. Carmen Reyes, 2008KN019196, a four year old child was left home alone for fifteen minutes. Ms. Reyes' criminal defense attorney made a motion to dismiss the complaint for facial insufficiency arguing, in part, that prosecution provided no facts that would support the contention that the Defendant knowingly acted in a manner that would be dangerous to the child.

Justice Gerstein held "that the issue of whether there is some minimum time that a child must be left alone in order to hold a defendant liable under PL 260.10(1) is ill-suited for resolution on a motion to dismiss for facial insufficiency. Among the factors which would appear appropriate for consideration are the age of the child, the length of time involved, the maturity of the particular child, and the reason why the child was left alone. While the statute, by its terms, protects all children under seventeen years of age, no one would think of applying the same rule to a sixteen year old as to an infant left home alone."

In finding that a trial was necessary to resolve the issues in the case, the Court noted that "home alone" cases are generally not resolved by a motion to dismiss, but at at trial. While there are some clear examples of when the statute is violated in "home alone" cases, each case must be assessed with the facts and should not be dismissed for facial insufficiency.

While each case must be analyzed individually, a New York criminal defense attorney who has experience in this area of practice will be able to do just that. Founding member, Jeremy Saland, served for seven years as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and is not only proficient at assessing these cases, but will do so in a manner that will keep you involved and educated in the entire process.

Your NY criminal defense lawyer successfully challenged the Burglary charge pending against you in Brooklyn or Manhattan Supreme Court, but you still face other charges relating to the offense. One of those charges is Possession of Burglar's Tools, Penal Law Section 140.35. Although not a felony, the crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

According to Penal Law Section 140.35, a person is guilty of Possession of Burglar's Tools when "he possesses any tool, instrument or other article adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating offenses involving forcible entry into premises, or offenses involving larceny by a physical taking, or offenses involving theft of services...under circumstances evincing and intent to use or knowledge that some person intends to to use the same in the commission of an offense of such character."

Unfortunately, the Penal Law definition is not very helpful in ascertaining what constitutes Burglar's Tools. A skilled criminal defense attorney, on the other hand, can explain that it is not merely the object that you have, but the statute requires that you also have the intent to use that particular instrument to commit a theft related offense. Mere possession may not be enough.

In the past, courts have found that Burglar's Tools can run the gamut of objects from tinfoil lined bags used avoid sensors for shoplifting to metal hangers used to break into cars. In fact, toothpicks and other items have been deemed Burglar's Tools under the circumstances where the intent to use them in that capacity has been established. See People v. Gastiaburo, 23 A.D.2d 891 (2d Dept. 1965).

Whatever object you possess, if you are charged with Possession of Burglar's Tools you need an experienced criminal defense attorney to force the prosecution to their burden of proof and to challenge whether the object you have is in fact such a tool. As a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Jeremy Saland is exactly the type of attorney who can protect your rights and fight for your freedom.