New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Working as a NY criminal defense attorney and as a prosecutor has allowed me to examine and analyze cases from all sides including drug crimes relating to drug sales and possession. As a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office I was cross designated multiple times with the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor to investigate drug organizations where cocaine, crack, and heroin were all sold by crews throughout New York City. As a NY criminal defense attorney, I have represented clients in narcotics and drug cases who are accused of being the target of an investigation where they allegedly sold drugs to an undercover police officer. Depending on the weight or the amount of the narcotic sold, these individuals faced charges related to either Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance or Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance.

The investigations I was involved in as an assistant district attorney are not going away anytime soon. In fact, Manhattan prosecutors announced a "take down" yesterday of the "Stack Money Family" that allegedly had a drug operation in the vicinity of 143rd Street. Fifteen alleged members and associates of this organization were arrested and charged with Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance, Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance and Conspiracy after the police executed nine search warrants Wednesday morning. According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office press release, the crew was run by a man who was incarcerated at Rikers Island.

Since November 2007, police have been investigating the "Stack Money Family" whom prosecutors say are associated with the "Bloods" and more directly with the "Mack Baller Brims” or “Mayback Baller Brims.” "Operation Smokestack," as it is referred to by law enforcement, not only utilized undercover officers, but surveillance techniques to make the drug purchases, identify targets, and locate stash houses.

While an arrest and an indictment is not evidence of guilt, it is likely that the prosecutors involved in this case have substantial evidence due to the scope and length of the investigation. Certainly, the members and associates of the "Stack Money Family" have a long road ahead of them. That being said, no matter the evidence, there are often challenges that should be mounted to make sure that the evidence was obtained legally and the rights of the accused have not been violated. After all, quantity and quality are not the same. A skilled criminal defense attorney may be able to identify a weakness or an error in the prosecution's case or even expose a procedural or legal issue that was not properly followed by law enforcement. Whatever the situation may be, the prosecution always has the burden to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and a defendant has the right to make sure the prosecution does so.

As NY criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors, the lawyers at Crotty Saland, LLP, have handled cases involving Money Laundering, Grand Larceny, Scheme to Defraud and Offering a False Instrument for Filing. However, there is always a little “twist” when the accused is a member of your own profession. Only a couple of weeks ago I mentioned how important it is to investigate and research your attorney before retaining him or her. Well, once again, some people made a big mistake in retaining the wrong attorney. According to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, an attorney and his firm have been indicted from the crimes of Money Laundering, Grand Larceny, Scheme to Defraud and Offering a False Instrument for Filing for defrauding clients.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office press release, it is alleged that over the course of approximately seven years, Steven Rondos and his law firm, Raia & Rondos, P.C, “engaged in a scheme to defraud 23 incapacitated victims, and the estate of one deceased individual.” It is further alleged that “Mr. Rondos was appointed by various Supreme Court Justices in the New York City metropolitan area and elsewhere as legal guardian of property of incapacitated individuals. In that capacity, Mr. Rondos was responsible for safeguarding and managing the assets of incapacitated people. Instead, Mr. Rondos took advantage of the trust placed in him by the courts and the wards’ families and stole their money. In some instances, Mr. Rondos continued to steal money even after the victims had died.” In total, Mr. Rondos is accused of pocketing millions of his clients’ money and law enforcement is seeking asset forfeiture from him in the neighborhood of $5,000,000.

Mr. Rondos is clearly in need of experienced criminal counsel if he wants to prevent a bad situation from getting significantly worse. If convicted of the charges, Mr. Rondos faces up to 8 1/3 years to 25 years in state prison on the charges of Grand Larceny in the First Degree and Money Laundering in the First Degree, 5 years to 15 years on the charge of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, 2 1/3 years to 7 years on the charge of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and 1 1/3 years to 4 years state prison on the charges of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree and Offering a False Instrument for Filing.

I have mentioned in previous entries how significant and serious a charge Endangering the Welfare of a Child is to any defendant and his or her criminal defense attorney. While "only" a misdemeanor, it is understandable that there is a zero tolerance policy when it comes to protecting children.

In People v. Maribel Perez, 2008NY046914, a decision published in the last few weeks, a NY County (Manhattan) Criminal Court Judge dismissed the charges of Endangering the Welfare of Child against a mother of young children. This dismissal, however, was not due to the factual allegations in the complaint, but due to a technical legal mistake.

The complaint against the defendant alleged that "while in an intoxicated condition after having consumed 'three (3) bottles of Corona and two (2) forty (40) ounce bottles of Heineken,' the defendant left her four children ranging in age from one to thirteen years, alone for ten minutes in an apartment where there was 'urine on the floor.. cockroaches crawling on the floor of the apartment, in the kitchen, on the mattresses, and crawling over the sleeping children . . . dirty clothes and laundry all over the apartment . . . dirty pots and pans in the kitchen . . . [and] clorox bleach bottles in the tub of the dirty bathroom.'"

The criminal defense attorney alleged that the "'mere leaving of minor children for a period of ten minutes in the presence of a thirteen year old' is insufficient to create the 'likelihood of harm' required to plead a facially sufficient charge of Endangering the Welfare of a Child. Further, defendant additionally asserts that the 'allegations that the defendant consumed 5 bottles of beer and that the apartment was unclean' do not present a likelihood of harm to the children and do not rise to the level of criminal conduct encompassed by Endangering the Welfare of a Child. Thus she seeks dismissal of the complaint for facial insufficiency."

In disagreeing with the defendant, the court stated that ten minutes was ample enough time for children to be harmed and further noted that:

"Contrary to defendant's contention, the defendant did more than just leave her children alone in an apartment for ten minutes, or drink five bottles of beer while responsible for the care of her children, or keep a dirty house. The defendant isolates each one of these actions from the other, and in so doing, attempts to characterize each action in and of itself as noncriminal, if not wholly innocuous. But the defendant did not simply do one of these things separately and apart from the others; she did all of these things in conjunction, and the entirety of her alleged conduct, both her acts and omissions, provide reasonable cause to believe that she committed the offense of Endangering the Welfare of a Child against each one of her children."

Despite the court disagreeing with the defendant and firmly denying the motion for facial insufficiency on the grounds set forth by the defendant, the court still dismissed the complaint on a technical ground. The accusatory instrument in this matter contained hearsay allegations. Specifically, the officer stated that the children were minors and indicated their ages. Because the mother did not state the ages, there was no birth certificate establishing the ages or a description of the children as to make it clear they were minors, the complaint failed to legally set forth this element of the crime.

Two important lessons can be taken from this case. The first, which is clear, is that the courts are very open and liberal in their viewing of what activities or actions constitutes Endangering the Welfare of a Child even if that activity lasts for only a few minutes. However, the second lesson is equally important from a legal perspective and applies to all criminal allegations. That is, the prosecution has certain responsibilities and requirements. Even if a complaint is sufficient based on the facts set forth in it, the prosecution must make sure each and every legal element is satisfied. Here, the prosecution failed to set forth non-hearsay allegations. This failure, whatever the charge and whatever the facts, often takes a trained and experienced eye to identify. The criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have those trained eyes and will use their experience to fight for your rights and hold the prosecution to their burden.

Arthur Moreira had better get a NY criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. If reports are correct, he is facing felony charges relating to Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. According to press reports, the stage manager for "Lipstick Jungle" had sticky fingers and made off with 16 bags and coats from designers such as Prada, Gucci, Fendi and Dolce & Gabban. The value of the property is in excess of $30,000.

Mr. Moreira was arrested yesterday and is being arraigned today in Kings county (Brooklyn) Criminal Court. According to the media, an individual noticed one of the bags used for a prop on "Lipstick Jungle" being sold online. It is alleged that this individual contacted law enforcement and undercover officers purchased a Toledano bag for $500. Shortly thereafter, the officers purchased a Burberry coat for $1,400. These items, allegedly being sold well below their retail value, had, according to Mr. Moreira, "fallen off the truck."

Although I have not seen the complaint, Grand Larceny in the 3rd Degree as well as Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the 3rd Degree would appear to be the charges where the theft is alleged to be in excess of $3,000, but less than $50,000. These crimes are punishable by up to seven years in state prison. With representation from an experienced and skilled criminal defense attorney, Mr. Moreira should come nowhere near that potential sentence.

Through our years of as prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys, we at Crotty Saland, LLP have seen the charges before...Scheme to Defraud...Grand Larceny...but usually not in the context I am about to share with you. Unfortunately, I don't think this will be a shock to anyone, but attorneys...that's right, criminal defense attorneys, divorce attorneys and real estate attorneys, can be the biggest perpetrators of fraud. Because of this, it is imperative that you do your homework before handing someone not merely a retainer fee, but the reigns to your life. Don't learn this lesson after it is too late.

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office just announced an arrest and indictment today of a 59 year old man who had been pretending to be an immigration lawyer. The defendant, Victor Espinal, has been indicted on one count of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, one count of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, one count of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree and two counts of Practicing or Appearing as an Attorney-at-Law Without Being Admitted and Registered. If convicted, Mr. Espinal faces up to seven years in state prison on the most serious offense of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and one year in jail on the least serious offense of Appearing as an Attorney-at-Law Without Being Admitted and Registered.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Press release Mr. Espinal allegedly pretended to be an immigration attorney and accepted multiple thousands of dollars in fees for multiple clients during a five year period. The fees were to assist those clients in obtaining a green cards, visas and work permits. Instead of helping these individuals with their immigration issues, Mr.Espinal allegedly pocketed the money in this scheme and helped himself to the finer things in life.

As I sometimes note, there is always a lesson to be learned in every case. As I stated above, before retaining an attorney make sure that attorney is registered and has experience in your particular area of need. Get agreements in writing and maintain receipts. The person who has the most at stake in your case is you. Your attorney should be willing and able to stand with and next to you throughout your legal battle. Hopefully, Mr. Espinal, an any accused individual, should now recognize the importance of retaining REAL counsel. After all, only experienced and skilled criminal defense attorneys have the ability and knowledge to represent him and see that his rights are preserved.

Charged with Bribe Receiving in the Second Degree and Third Degrees (class "C" and "D" felonies punishable by up to 15 and 7 years in state prison respectively), Carlos Perez, the ex-director at Bellevue, recently pleaded guilty to the lesser Bribe Receiving offense. Today, present with his criminal defense attorney in NY County (Manhattan) Supreme Court, Mr. Perez was sentenced to five years probation for the scheme that he perpetrated. In addition to probation, Mr. Perez will also forfeit $25,000.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office's website, Mr. Perez's guilty plea "stems from Mr. Perez’s efforts to assist a company obtain a contract with Bellevue Hospital for the transcription of medical records."

Whether you are accused or the target of an investigation regarding Bribery, Falsifying Business Records, Grand Larceny or any other White Collar crime, contact the criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP so that we can preserve your rights, fight for your liberty, and maintain your integrity.

A Manhattan (NY County) Criminal Court Judge recently agreed with a NY criminal defense attorney and dismissed an entire criminal complaint against the defendant. The judge dismissed the charges of Reckless Endangerment, Attempted Tampering with Physical Evidence and Obstruction of Governmental Administration after the judge found the complaint facially insufficient.

In People v. Edward Beam, 2008NY046855, the information/complaint alleged that a police officer observed the defendant holding "what appeared to be a marijuana cigarette." Shortly thereafter, the police officer approached the defendant and the defendant ran into traffic "where multiple vehicles were in motion." Ultimately, the officer observed the defendant throw the item he held in his hand (the alleged marijuana) to the ground and the police officer was unable to recover it.

Continue reading " NY Criminal Defense: Judge Dismisses Reckless Endangerment, Attempted Tampering With Physical Evidence & Obstruction of Governmental Administration " »

As NY criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors, my partner and I at Crotty Saland, LLP have seen a whole lot of "interesting things." Usually, with a little research and effort, we can find the answer to the vast majority of issues and questions we are confronted with. However, the analysis of Natalie Dylan's auctioning of her virginity is definitely the first time (and I guess last and only for her) I have ever come across something like this. So, the question that stands out is whether this is Prostitution and Escorting in "sheep's clothing" or a legal and fine "transaction?"

As I have explained before, Prostitution occurs if you engage or agree or offer to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee. What complicates this matter is that obviously Ms. Dylan is not in NY so the laws of her state are different. But, what about the person who makes an offer or has an acceptable bid (I'm guessing it will take at least $3.5 million dollars, a toyota prius, a bag of Snyder's Pretzels and a romantic dinner date with Larry Flynt)? Is that person guilty of Patronizing a Prostitute? One is guilty in NY of Patronizing a Prostitute when, among other things, he solicits, offers, or agrees to have sexual conduct with another person in exchange for a fee.

While there may be interesting ways to defend each person's actions, on its face it appears that if these two folks were in NY they would be in real trouble. That being said, she is in San Diego and consummating the deal in a Nevada county where this is legal.

Because this issue has never come up before and the courts have not ruled on this (at least I am not aware of it) it is difficult to give a definitive answer. The strongest guidance is to look at sections of the law that are applicable to this question and answer assuming the bidder or the "winner" was a New Yorker. In this case, that would be CPL 20.30. CPL 20.30 states as follows:

Continue reading " An Online Virginity Auction or Plain Old Prostitution: A NY Criminal Defense Attorney's Analysis of Natalie Dylan's Offer " »

Despite a criminal defense attorney's best efforts, a Brooklyn State Supreme Court Justice ruled in a decision published yesterday that the United States Supreme Court's decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller does not prevent New York State from regulating guns, pistols and firearms within its boundaries.

Defendant, Albi Abdullah, was arrested and charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree pursuant to Penal Law 265.01(1). The defendant had been arrested after police found him violation of an order of protection. When asked whether he had any weapons, the defendant admitted that he had a gun in a kitchen cabinet. The police then located an unloaded .25 caliber handgun.

The defendant's criminal defense attorney moved to dismiss the Criminal Possession of a Weapon charge arguing that "PL 265.01 is unconstitutional and that such charge constitutes a violation of defendant's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in his home for self protection, pursuant to the US Constitution., Amendments II and XIV; and pursuant to the holding of the US Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 Sup Ct 2783 (2008). Defendant further supports his claim of unconstitutionality on the alleged arbitrary and capricious nature of the City's gun licensing process as managed by the New York City Police Department." The prosecution responded by arguing that "Heller, by its own terms, is neither applicable to nor binding upon the States, and that it cannot be interpreted to mean that the Second Amendment bars a state's reasonable regulation of gun possession." The court ultimately reviewed the case and agreed with the prosecution.

In denying the defendant's motion to dismiss, the court recognized that:

"The Supreme Court did specifically hold in Heller that the District of Columbia's ban on the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment (128 Sup Ct at 2821-22) but the Court also stated that the right to keep and bear arms as secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited (supra, at 2816) and that the Second Amendment is neither applicable to nor binding upon the States (Heller, supra, 2812-13). The Court then chose not to address the validity of the District of Columbia's licensing requirement (supra, at 2819) and hypothesized that 'Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.'(supra, at 2822)."

The court further found that:

"Because New York does not have a complete ban on the possession of handguns in the home and because the District of Columbia is a federal enclave and not a State, Heller is distinguishable and its holding does not invalidate New York's gun possession laws or regulations. The Second Amendment has been recently held not to apply to the States and is not incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. (See Bach v. Pataki, 408 F 3d 75, 86 [2nd Cir, 2005]; Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F 3d 370,391, n. 13 [DC Circuit, 2007]) Therefore, in New York, possession of a firearm remains a criminal act, pursuant to Penal Law Article 265, unless one holds a license to so possess, pursuant to Penal Law 265.20(3)."

Clearly, Heller's scope is not unlimited and does not prevent NY from regulating hand guns and other firearms. In fact, New York State's regulations are "alive and well." Arguably, NY has some of the most strict and severe gun laws in the nation. Mere possession of a loaded and unlicensed firearm outside one's business or home is punishable as a "C" violent felony by a minimum of 3.5 years in state prison to 15 years. That particular charge does not even require a showing that you had the intent to use the weapon unlawfully.

Whatever charge you are accused of, whether it be a violent crime of gun possession or a white collar crime relating to fraud, don't compound a criminal matter by retaining inexperienced counsel. Contact the criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP so we can begin helping you get where you want and need to be.

Generally, one violates an order of protection and is guilty of Criminal Contempt if one fails to abide by the regulations set forth in the order of protection / restraining order. Unfortunately, as the NY criminal defense attorneys and former domestic violence prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP, can tell you, there are often countless issues that come to the forefront in these cases that require a skilled attorney to resolve. One interesting issue that arises is whether a prior finding of guilt in Family Court for violating an order protection precludes a criminal prosecution for Criminal Contempt on the same matter. In other words, does double jeopardy apply?

The general answer to this question was answered by the Court of Appeals in People v. Wood, 95 NY2d 509 (2000). In that matter, the defendant made phone calls and harassed the complainant in violation of both a Family Court and Criminal Court order of protection. The offense before both courts related to the same conduct. The Court of Appeals held that the finding of contempt in Family Court triggered double jeopardy protections because that finding of contempt, although not criminal, is punitive in nature. Therefore, the prosecution was prevented from commencing a criminal action for Criminal Contempt under the same set of facts for the same set of circumstances.

Although the above rule is a general rule as applied to the same conduct violating the same provisions of two distinct orders of protection, certain factors alter this rule. In fact, recently in Wylie v. Fountain, 304 AD2d 872 (3rd Dept. 2003), the 3rd Department came to a different conclusion that double jeopardy did not bar a criminal prosecution where different parts of the orders of protections were violated. Obviously, the waters surrounding these types of cases are treacherous. Is the alleged action the same or distinct? Is there a violation of one provision or multiple? Whatever the circumstance, retain experienced criminal counsel to navigate these waters and protect your rights, integrity and liberty.

You don't have to stick up a bank to steal over a million dollars. Well, at least that is what the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is alleging in an indictment for Grand Larceny that was handed down against Robert Chiarappa. Mr. Chiarappa, along with his criminal defense attorney, was scheduled to be arraigned in NY County Supreme Court on the Grand Larceny charges today.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Mr. Chiarappa was the purchasing agent for the John Galt Corporation and is alleged to have stolen $1.2 million from the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation and Arch Insurance Group in connection to the abatement and deconstruction of the Deutsche Bank building.

It is alleged that from about September 2006 through October 2007, Mr. Chiarappa instructed some vendors to submit fraudulent invoices for products never delivered to the project. Mr. Chiarappa would approve of these transactions in exchange for jewelry, trips and even a car. It is further alleged that Mr. Chiarappa stole property such as clothing and boots by requesting that vendors provide him with these items and draft fake invoices. Mr. Chiarappa is even accused of being involved in approving false claims after the Deutsche Bank fire.

Although it appears that the value of the stolen property was not aggregated to be in excess of one million dollars due to the multiple victims (if it had been, the charge would be one count of Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a "B" felony punishable by up to twenty five years in state prison), Mr. Chiarappa still faces significant time in prison if convicted. Mr. Chiarappa faces up to fifteen years in state prison on the "C" felony counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and seven years in state prison on the "D" felony counts of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree.

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office announced the indictment of William Rapetti, a tower crane rigger and owner of a company that does the same, on charges including Manslaughter, Criminally Negligent Homicide, Assault and Reckless Endangerment. Mr. Rapetti's criminal defense attorney has his work cut out. If Mr. Rapetti is convicted of the crimes that resulted in the death of seven individuals he faces up to one year in jail on the least significant crime of Reckless Endangerment and up to 15 years in state prison on the most serious crime of Manslaughter. Mr. Rappetti, along with his criminal defense attorney, was in NY County Supreme Court earlier today for his arraignment on these charges.

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office is not alleging that Mr. Rapetti intentionally killed these individuals as he is not charged with Murder. Instead, it appears that based on the charges the prosecutions theory was that Mr. Rapetti was both negligent and reckless. Although the prosecution must always prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and has the sole burden to do so, a reckless and negligent offense does not require any showing that the defendant tried to or sought to hurt or kill the victims of the crimes. According to the press release, prosecutors believe Mr. Rapettti clearly was negligent. The press release indicates that:

"Rapetti violated numerous provisions of the New York City Building Code, federal regulations, industry standards and the manufacturer’s specifications pertaining to the proper use of the polyester slings. In particular, one of the failed slings had substantial pre-existing damage, including cuts and severe discoloration, that would have been obvious to Rapetti had he properly inspected the sling as mandated by the Building Code, federal regulations, and industry standards. Because the pre-existing damage had substantially diminished the capacity of that sling, it should not have been used at all.

In addition, all four slings had been tied to the crane in a knot called a 'choke,' which has the weakest load-bearing capacity of the three standard knots used in this type of operation. The slings were also tied around sharp metal edges of the crane tower without any kind of protective padding, which was also a violation of the Building Code, federal regulations, industry standards and warning labels on the slings themselves. The use of the slings without protective padding caused severe cuts to the slings, greatly reducing their capacity and ultimately leading to their failure. Finally, the investigation revealed that Rapetti failed to follow the crane manufacturer’s specifications that the collar should have been supported by eight slings, not four."

Without knowing all the facts beyond the press release, it is difficult to say whether or not these actions, or lack their of, were negligent and reckless. Although arguing industry standards are the minimum level of safety in these operations, does failure to follow those guidelines mean Mr. Rapetti was negligent or reckless? If a particular knot is the weakest, does that mean it is useless or faulty and therefore it is reckless to use it? Moreover, is there any evidence that the manufacturer of the hardware is at fault and not Mr. Rapetti? Again, it is difficult to answer these questions without knowing the facts.

Whatever the facts may be, this case, like any other case, needs a detailed examination to ascertain the answers to these and other questions. While the untrained eye may see this case as one that is overwhelming due to the unfortunate deaths and Mr. Rapetti's alleged failure to follow regulations, skilled criminal defense attorneys such as those at Crotty Saland, LLP know that time, diligence and the attention to detail can alter the perception and reality of a criminal case.

If you have just been arrested for Shoplifting, Forgery or Gun, Knife or Weapon Possession, it may not be comforting at all to you to know that there is a downward trend in crime. According to a recent report on crime in New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island) by CompStat, overall crime has fallen by 3.4 percent in 2008. The Compstat program tracks criminal activity for New York City as an arm of the NYPD. A closer look at the numbers reveals that while Homicides and Robberies are on the rise (there were 26 more Homicides and approximately 500 more Robberies when compared to 2007), other crimes have dropped.

While a general decrease in crimes is a great thing for all of us and our families, statistics are merely statistics and need to be examined. For example, are precincts under reporting certain "quality of life crimes" by classifying them or calling them something different than what they are? For example, without discussing the differences in the crimes, could there be a decrease in Petit Larceny offenses because the police are charging Criminal Possession of Stolen Property instead? In the alternative, have the police wanted to look as if they are tougher on crime by overcharging certain offenses. Is that Robbery really a Grand Larceny from the person (a similar offense to Robbery, but without the force). Again, there is no legitimate argument to be made in opposition to a decrease in crime, but is always important to question and examine the statistics and how they were gathered, assessed and formulated.

Whatever the case may be, increase or decrease in crime, if you or a loved one is charged with an offense it doesnt matter what the daily, monthly, or yearly crime trend is. What matters is that you have been accused of committing a life altering action. If you find yourself in this situation, let the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP work to get you where you need to be to preserve your integrity, freedom and rights. After all, you don't want to be one of the statistics the next time the NYPD compiles and delivers its report on crime.