New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Your criminal defense attorney or lawyer has heard the charges before...Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25)...Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (NY PL 165.40)...Grand Larceny (NY PL 155.30)...Yes, even Burglary (NY PL 140.20). Unfortunately, you where caught shoplifting a sweater from Bloomingdales in Manhattan or pair of shoes from Macys in Brooklyn. Security stops you on the way out and confiscates the property from you. You tell them you will never do it again if they let you go (oops...you may have just unwittingly made an admission!!!). The next thing you know you are given a notice telling you your right to be in that particular store is revoked and that there is a civil fine you must pay. If that wasn't enough, the police arrive and escort you, in handcuffs, to the resort and spa known as "central booking." If you are fortunate, the police issue you a Desk Appearance Ticket (D.A.T. / DAT).

"Simple" shoplifting has enormous and life altering consequences. Aside from the embarrassment, shame and potential loss of of your job if your employer finds out, the charges you may face are numerous. Even if you plea to a lesser Disorderly Conduct (a violation and not a crime), a background check down the road may reveal your shoplifting arrest.

In general, when you take property (here, the sweater or shoes) that do not belong to you, you may be guilty of Petit Larceny. In the event that the value of the property exceeds one thousand dollars, three thousand dollars or fifty thousand, then you may be guilty of Grand Larceny in the fourth, third and second degree respectively. Petit Larceny is punishable by up to one year in jail and Grand Larceny in the fourth through second degrees is punishable by up to four, seven, and fifteen years respectively.

Another potential crime is Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. The easiest way to understand this offense is to know that if you take property and you keep it knowing that you do not have permission to do so and you have no intention of returning it, then you may be guilt of this crime. While this crime is different than Petit and Grand Larceny, they are somewhat interchangeable in that the sentences for the misdemeanor and felony versions follow the same guidelines as the larceny offenses as indicated above.

Another potential charge, although less common, is Burglary. If you are advised that your right to enter a particular store has been revoked (it should be in writing) and you return and attempt to steal again, you may be committing a Burglary. Moreover, in the event that you enter an area of a store that is off limits and that is not open to the public and you attempt or complete a crime you also may be charged with Burglary. This offense is a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

If you are charged with one or more of these crimes in relation to a shoplifting allegation, you should be ready to sit down with your criminal defense attorney and answer a few questions so that a plan of attack can be formulated and implemented for you. For example, did you bypass the cash registers when you were stopped or were you still in the store? Did you place multiple items in your bag or were you holding them? Did you have a "booster" bag or was this merely a mistake and you intended to pay? Was the area that was off limits clearly marked? Whatever your circumstances, you must understand that even avoiding a conviction for Petit Larceny can still come back to "haunt" you years down the road when you graduate college, apply for a new job or attempt to get clearance or state / federal certification.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients in theft related matters throughout the metropolitan New York region. Former Manhattan prosecutors, the attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP have extensive experience handling larceny crimes as both assistant district attorneys and criminal defense lawyers.

Throughout NY, law enforcement is gearing up for the holiday season and the unfortunate reality that many people will be driving drunk. Make no mistake, police, prosecutors and judges rightfully take DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) crimes very seriously. That being said, law enforcement must act within the bounds of the law in investigating and prosecuting these crimes. Obviously, making sure that law enforcement adheres to the “rule of law” is imperative to the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP, because we know that the mere allegation of DWI, even if it is completely incorrect, has life altering consequences.

Recently, in People v. Shannon Sharp, 2008I001925, a criminal court judge suppressed the blood test results of a defendant charged with DWI. In that case, 2.5 hours after the defendant was initially arrested, the defendant agreed to submit to a blood test after the police officer “told that her [that her] driver license would be immediately suspended and subsequently revoked if she did not consent to a blood test, and that ‘refusal to submit to a test or portion thereof, can be introduced against [her] at any trial proceeding or hearing resulting from the arrest.’"

In suppressing the results of the blood test, the court correctly recognized that pursuant to VTL §1194 [2][a], a driver must submit to a chemical test within two hours after being placed under arrest for any violation of VTL §1192 (DWI). “Although evidence of a defendant's refusal to take the test offered within the two hour period may be admissible, evidence of refusal to a test offered beyond the two hour period is inadmissible “(People v. Morris, 8 Misc3d 360 [Crim Ct, Richmond County 2005]). “The general prohibition of offering evidence of a chemical test taken beyond two hours of arrest is inapplicable if the defendant consents to the test” (People v. Ayala, 89 NY2d 874 [1996]; but see People v. Victory, 166 Misc 2d 549 [Crim Ct, Kings County 1995]).

Moreover, a “simple request to submit to a blood test can result in a voluntary consent beyond the two hour period as long as there is no express or implied coercion by law enforcement officials, no material misrepresentation of fact to induce consent, and no facts to suggest that the police acted in a manner so fundamentally unfair as to constitute a due process violation to negate any consent “(People v. Capraella, 165 Misc2d 639, 644 [Crim Ct, Queens County 1995]).

As stated above, in this case the submission to the test was beyond two hours from the initial arrest. Moreover, the police officer incorrectly advised the defendant as to the law when he stated that her driver license would be suspended immediately, it would then be revoked if she did not submit to a blood test, and, lastly, that the defendant’s refusal to take the blood test could be used against her at a later trial or hearing. As a result, the court found that the “inaccurate statement of the law by a police officer, detailing undesirable consequences if the defendant refused a blood test, rendered submission to the blood test involuntary.”

If you find yourself or a loved one charged with any serious criminal matter including DWI, contact the former Manhattan prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP. Our attorneys will vigorously and zealously fight to protect your integrity, rights, and future.

Lillo Brancato, best know as the young man divided between his father and the mob in a "Bronx Tale" and the "Sopranos," was acquitted of Second Degree Murder by a Bronx jury. Brancato's criminal defense strategy may have helped him dodge a term of imprisonment that likely would have landed him behind bars for decades, but he is still likely to see some serious time in an upstate prison.

The jury found Brancato guilty of Attempted Burlgary in the First Degree, a class "C" violent felony. For those people who are not NY criminal defense attorneys or familiar with the criminal justice system, Burglary in the First Degree is a "B" violent felony that requires a minimum sentence of five years state prison and a maximum twenty five years state prison. Because he was convicted of this offense as an attempt and not a completed crime, the crime is lowered one degree to a "C" felony. Therefore, Brancato faces a minimum of three and one half years to fifteen years in state prison at his sentence. This potential sentence is the exact same sentence that Plaxico Burress faces if he is convicted for allegedly possessing the loaded firearm in Manhattan a few weeks ago. That being said, while both crimes are "C" violent felonies, Brancato's sentence will likely be much more severe and closer to the higher end of the spectrum because of the terrible and unfortunate death of a police officer.

Regardless of Brancato's sentence, nobody can bring back Officer Daniel Enchautegui or ease the suffering of his family. As noted by Brancato's defense counsel, ``[t]here was never going to be smiles. This is not a case that warrants that.''

NY criminal defense attorneys should be on notice. The crimes of Identity Theft, Grand Larceny, and Unlawful Possession of Personal Identifying Information have new “friends.” NY criminal defense attorneys and every day citizens should be aware that as of November 4, 2008, New York added additional crimes to the NYS Penal Law. These new offenses, Unlawful Possession of a Skimmer Device in the First and Second Degrees, directly relate to using skimmers to perpetrate certain fraud crimes.

Pursuant to Penal Law 190.85, a person is guilty of Unlawful Possession of a Skimmer Device in the Second Degree when “he or she possesses a skimmer device with the intent that such device be used in furtherance of the commission of the crime of identity theft or unlawful possession of personal identification information.”

Pursuant to Penal Law 190.86, a person is guilty of Unlawful Possession of a Skimmer Device in the First Degree when “he or she commits the crime of unlawful possession of a skimmer device in the second degree and he or she has been previously convicted within the last five years of” Identity Theft, Grand Larceny, Unlawful Possession of Personal Identifying Information or Unlawful Possession of a Skimmer Device.

To better understand what constitutes a skimmer device the criminal law defines such a device as any device “designed or adapted to obtain personal identifying information from a credit card, debit card, public benefit card, access card or device, or other card or device that contains personal identifying information.”

While nobody wants to be the guinea pig to be the first person charged under this new statute, if you find yourself charged with Identity Theft, Grand Larceny, Unlawful Possession of Personal Identifying Information or Unlawful Possession of a Skimmer Device you should retain counsel with real world experience in these matters. Assigned to and as an originating member of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office’s Identity Theft Unit upon its creation, Jeremy Saland, along with Elizabeth Crotty, has the knowledge and experience to fight these charges. We, at Crotty Saland, LLP, are ready to work alongside you to protect your rights, liberty and integrity.

NY criminal defense attorneys know that the crime of Enterprise Corruption is often viewed as New York's RICO statute. Generally, a person is guilty of Enterprise Corruption "when, having knowledge of the existence of a criminal enterprise ad the nature of its activities and being employed by or associated with such enterprise," he either (a) "intentionally conducts or participates in the affairs of an enterprise by participating in a pattern of criminal activity," (b) "intentionally acquires or maintains any interest in or control of an enterprise by participating in a pattern of criminal activity" or (c) "participates in a pattern of criminal activity and knowingly invests any proceeds derived from that conduct, or any proceeds derived from the investment or use of those proceeds, in an enterprise."

Although the statute does not seem to complicated on it's face, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP, can tell you that not only is it a convoluted statute, but many of the seemingly simple terms in the statute have their own unique definitions. Each of these terms and the cases that define those terms must be analyzed and researched in order to successfully challenge an indictment for Enterprise Corruption.

One term that has its own meaning and that will be addressed in this entry is what constitutes a "criminal enterprise." At bottom, if there is no "criminal enterprise" then there can be no Enterprise Corruption. Therefore, challenging the existence of the alleged "criminal enterprise" is often the central piece to a motion to dismiss an indictment against a client.

Continue reading " Enterprise Corruption in NY: The Necessity of an "Ascertainable Structure" " »

After months of planning, Jeremy Saland, the founding member of the Law Office of Jeremy Saland, a NY based criminal defense firm, is pleased to announce his partnership with Elizabeth Crotty and the formation of Crotty Saland, LLP. Obtaining successful results for our clients since our inception, Crotty Saland, LLP, is a full service law firm representing clients in all criminal matters in New York State and Federal courts. Although the main focus of Crotty Saland, LLP, is representing clients in all stages of a criminal investigation from pre-arrest procedures through hearing, trials and appeals, we also represent clients in civil litigation and other legal matters as well.

Prior to forming Crotty Saland, LLP, both Jeremy Saland and Elizabeth Crotty served as prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Elizabeth Crotty served in Trial Division where she was assigned to the Domestic Violence Unit and handled cases from pre-arrest investigations through grand jury and trial. Additionally, Ms. Crotty served in the Investigation Division in the Special Prosecutions Bureau where she prosecuted international white collar fraud schemes and worked on the Oil-For-Food Investigation involving the United Nations. Upon leaving the Manhattan District Attorney's Office after six years of service, Ms. Crotty was an associate at a boutique civil litigation firm in Manhattan for over two years.

Like Ms. Crotty, Mr. Saland served in the Trial Divistion of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and the Domestic Violence Unit where he conducted numerous hearings and tried numerous cases involving crimes of fraud, theft and violence. Mr. Saland continued to gain valuable experience working alongside the NYPD, Secret Service, State Department and Postal Inspection Service conducting large scale fraud investigations after his assignment to the Identity Theft Unit. As one of the founding members of the Identity Theft Unit upon its creation, Mr. Saland received hands on training in crimes relating to computer fraud, identity theft and other offense. Upon leaving the Manhattan District Attorney's Office after seven years of service, Mr. Saland worked in two boutique criminal defense firms before starting his criminal defense practice and ultimately Crotty Saland, LLP.

Whether you are a witness to or a target of any criminal investigation, you have already been arrested, or you are seeking experienced counsel on a complex civil matter, Crotty Saland, LLP knows there there is no substitute for dedicated, experienced, and skilled counsel. Whatever legal issues you may face, Crotty Saland, LLP is ready to formulate and implement a plan of action to protect your rights, liberty and integrity.

As a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and as a NY criminal defense attorney I have handled too many crimes relating to Petit and Grand Larceny than I can count. As a prosecutor I supervised, among other cases, the investigations and prosecutions of a multi-million dollar “pump and dump” stock scheme in conjunction with the SEC and a multi-million dollar extortion attempt of an NBA All-Star. Over the past few months I successfully represented clients in two separate Grand Larceny cases. In one, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged my client with a “B” felony for allegedly “stealing” approximately $5,000,000 dollars of city and state taxes (including penalties). The District Attorney’s Office charged my other client with a “D” felony for allegedly stealing in the neighborhood of $25,000 in property from multiple people. Despite the significant amount of alleged theft, neither of my clients went to jail or prison as a result of their conduct. One of their dispositions even included an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) despite an admission by the client as to the alleged criminal activity. While we at Crotty Saland, LLP can't guarantee any particular result in a criminal matter, we can certainly guarantee that we will work tirelessly on each case so that we give you the best opportunity to get you where you want, and need, to be.

While there are many good criminal defense attorneys, it is important that your criminal defense attorney will not only travel down any ethical and legal road on your behalf, but is familiar with the nuances of the statute or statutes you are charged with. That being said, we are going to address those nuances of the statutes relating to Larceny.

Generally, pursuant to Penal Law §155.05, “larceny occurs when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner” of that property. Larceny includes the wrongful taking in many different forms or theories. These can include theft by trespassory taking, trick, embezzlement, or false pretenses. Other theories prosecutors can follow to come after you include larceny by acquiring lost property, issuing a bad check, by giving a false promise or by extortion. Over the course of the next couple of months I will pepper the blog with entries about some of these different theories. Today, however, we will start with Larceny (Petit or Grand) by acquiring lost property.

Continue reading " Grand Larceny & Petit Larceny: Differing Criminal Theories of the Same Crime & Your Criminal Defense " »

You have just been arrested for Criminal Mischief, NY Penal Law 145.00 and you are waiting to see the judge after going through Manhattan Central Booking. Earlier in the day you got into a fight and threw a metal garbage bin from the corner of the street at some guy. Fortunately, you missed him, but the can hit a parked car causing a scratch that will cost the owner $200 to repair. You tell your NY criminal defense attorney that you intended to hit the guy and you never wanted to damage the vehicle. Well, your criminal defense attorney, if he is skilled and experienced, may have some good news for you.

According to Penal Law 145.00, a person is guilty of Criminal Mischief in the Forth Degree when, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe the he has such a right, he, under subsections (1) and (3), intentionally damages property of another person or recklessly damages property of another person in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars.

Assuming the the prosecution's theory falls under subdivision one, is the intent to damage another person's property satisfied where the intent was to cause injury to another person, but as a result property was damaged instead? In other words, can the intent be transferred? In the scenario above, your intent was to hurt the person, but your bad aim caused damage to a car that you did not want to hit.

The answer to this question has been settled by the courts numerous times. Simply put, the intent cannot be transferred and the intent to damage property must be specifically for that purpose. See People v. Summer, 64 A.D.2d 658 (2nd Dept. 1978) ( to be guilty of criminal mischief in the fourth degree, one must have the specific intent to damage the property of another); People v. Bryant, 85 A.D.2d 575 (1st Dept. 1981) (evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction of criminal mischief in fourth degree upon theory that defendant intentionally damaged victim's eyeglasses, in view of lack of evidence of specific intent directed toward eyeglasses as opposed to victim himself).

While the intent to cause damage is specific and critical for any conviction to stand in a prosecution for Criminal Mischief under this theory, prosecutors may still be able to proceed against you if your actions were reckless and the damage exceeds $250. If that is the theory, then another analysis is necessary. In the hypothetical scenario above where the damage is less than $250, an experienced criminal defense attorney, such as the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP, must aggressively seek a complete dismissal of the charges against you.

According to the media, New York Giants All Pro wide receiver Plaxico Burress is turning himself in to the New York City Police Department for shooting himself in the leg this past weekend in Manhattan. As of now, it appears that he will be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon, a class "C" felony, punishable by a minimum of 3.5 years in state prison to a maximum of 15 years.

Unfortunately for Mr.Burress, the criminal law and consequences have changed significantly in recent years. The "old" law required that prosecutors prove not only that you possessed a loaded firearm (handgun, pistol, etc.), but that you had the intent to use it unlawfully against another. Now, the mere possession of a loaded firearm outside your home or place of business constitutes the same level crime. That is, possession alone is a "C" felony and the prosecution does not have to prove in any way that you, or in this case Plaxico Burress, intended to use that gun unlawfully against another person. Only 2-3 years ago, under the same set of facts, Mr. Burress would likely have been charged "only" with a "D" felony punishable by a minimum of 2 years in state prison and a maximum of seven years if the prosecution could not establish that the gun was possessed with the intent to use it unlawfully.

Although the charges and penalties are harsher then they were in the past, skilled criminal defense attorneys, such as the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP, know how to analyze and pick apart a prosecutor's criminal case. While on its face the charges against Plaxico Burress seem overwhelming (hey, he shot himself in the leg!), not everything is as clear as it seems. While we don't know all the facts, questions and issues that will likely arise over the next few days might give prosecutors pause. For example, where is the gun and bullet that were part of the shooting? If the gun was not recovered in Manhattan, such as where a person is stopped with the firearm, is there a witness who can establish that the shooting took place at a particular location in the jurisdiction? In the alternative, is there a video? While nobody is likely to contest that there was a shooting, there needs to be some form of evidence that incident took place and the firearm was possessed in Manhattan.

While there are many ways to attack a prosecutor's case, an experienced and skilled eye is needed to find and investigate each detail. Time will tell whether Plaxico Burress' criminal defense attorney will be able to find or expose such a weakness. Irrespective of the outcome of his matter, if you find yourself in any criminal predicament, Crotty Saland, LLP is ready to aggressively fight to protect your rights, freedom, livelihood and integrity.