New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

According to many reports, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau is not seeking re-election this fall as the chief prosecutor in NY County. Respected and admired by fellow prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys and members of the judiciary, Mr. Morgenthau has served as the District Attorney for 35 years. Prior to serving as the District Attorney, Mr. Morgenthau was the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Morgenthau comes from a family dedicated to public service. His father, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. was Secretary of the Treasury and his grandfather, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. was United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

Robert Morgenthau has not only been an icon in NY, but he dedicated his life to fighting crime in the "streets" as well as the "suites." Whether his office prosecuted violent street crimes or white collar cases such as Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski and Lloyds Bank, Mr. Morgenthau personified professionalism and ethics in prosecution.

As a former Manhattan prosecutor who served under Robert Morgenthau for seven years, I can say without any hesitation that I grew into the attorney I am today because of him. Whether we continued as prosecutors, moved into other government agencies or started careers in the corporate arena and private practice, my former colleagues and I all share this bond of having learned from a tremendous attorney and person. The passion, experience and skills that my clients benefit from today were forged under his guidance and leadership.

Whomever follows Mr. Morgenthau certainly has enormous shoes to fill. While there are always differing opinions on how to handle any case there was always a level of certainty when dealing with the Manhattan District Attorneys Office. That pillar was Robert Morgenthau.

The New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP take each and every criminal case seriously whether the case involves a misdemeanor charge of Harassment or a felony charge of Grand Larceny. Our results speak for themselves. We recognize that regardless of how "small" the case may appear to be in the scheme of the entire criminal justice system, to the accused and our criminal defense attorneys, each case is priority matter.

Recently, the attorneys at Crotty Saland achieved what may appear to be a small victory, but one that was hard fought over a period of months. Our client, a former employee at a one of the world's largest media companies, was accused of Prostitution as a "high end girl." After drafting a memorandum similar to a Clayton motion bearing out why the District Attorney's Office should offer a disposition different than the standard offer, the prosecutor assigned to the case agreed to offer such a disposition. However, although our client accepted the offer, upon going to court to accept the plea someone other than the assigned prosecutor changed the offer. A supervisor refused to make the original offer despite the previous agreement. Therefore, our client was unable to obtain the agreed upon disposition and the case was adjourned.

Further attempts were made to obtain the previously agreed upon disposition, but again, the supervisor refused to honor the agreement. On the following court date a different, but unacceptable offer was made. Again it was rejected. Because no legal notices were given that would require motions to challenge statements or identification and there were no issues regarding property recovered from the defendant, motion practice was waived and the matter was adjourned for trial.

Upon returning to court 63 days later we made an application that the case should be dismissed. Pursuant to CPL 30.30, the People must be ready for trial within 60 days from the beginning of the case where the charge is a "B" misdemeanor. The prosecution had not indicated at any point that they were ready for trial. The People refused to concede and the case was adjourned for a decision on the matter after after parties filed legal motions.

Without going into all the details of the motion to dismiss, one of the issues was whether the prosecution is given a "reasonable" amount of time to prepare for trial after an adjournment for the purpose of starting a trial. This particular judge had previously ruled in a published decision in the the New York Law Journal on a matter with similar facts. In that decision the court relied on, among other things, an earlier decision where it was held that the prosecution should be granted a "reasonable" amount of time to prepare for trial and denied that criminal defense attorney's motion to dismiss.

Despite the court's previous decision, we argued that there was a critical distinction between the cases. That is, in our client's matter motions were waived and a trial was requested. At no time did we ask to make motions to challenge legal issues because none existed at that time. The cases cited by the court in its earlier decision and those beneficial to the prosecution dealt with facts where motion practice was requested, but on the date the motions were due the criminal defense attorney waived the motions and asked for trial. Therefore, arguably, in the latter scenario, the People should be permitted a "reasonable" period of time to prepare for trial. In our client's case there was never a request to file motions. As a practical matter we argued that granting a "reasonable" period of time to prepare for trial where there were no motions or legal issues pending would be tantamount to ruling that in every case the prosecution would always get a "bonus" period of time to prosecute the accused. Armed with numerous court decisions and applicable statutes, the court granted our motion over the prosecutor's protest.

The fact that this case involved the charge of Prostitution is irrelevant. The same statutes and court decisions apply to criminal cases throughout New York. What is important is that we were able to identify the distinctions in the law (and a distinction from this particular judges published decision relating to the same crime and same issue), find applicable cases and apply them to our client's legal matter to get it dismissed. Without a doubt, each case handled by Crotty Saland, LLP requires and is deserving of our experience and relentless efforts - "big" or "small." Our results would not be the same without this effort.

Whether you are alleged to have committed a Grand Larceny theft in excess of $50,000 or a Petit Larceny shoplifting, your NY White Collar criminal defense attorney knows that if the prosecution does not establish each element of the crime, the case should be dismissed. Recently, a New York State Supreme Court Justice in Nassau County followed this rule when it dismissed four counts of Grand Larceny and one count of Scheme to Defraud against a defendant in connection to New York State’s Lien Law.

In People v. Bryan Hateau , 2492N-2008, the defendant had received checks from his clients, homeowners, that he deposited legally in his business account. Those monies were held in trust funds and were to be forwarded on behalf of various clients within 31 days to sub-contractors. The evidence before the Grand Jury established that this was not done. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the evidence before the Grand Jury did not establish that the defendant misappropriated those funds.

In context with the Lien Law, the prosecution was required to establish certain elements. The Court recognized “that in order to obtain a conviction for any degree of larceny under the Lien Law, the People must prove that a defendant had the intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate same to himself or a third person.” See, People v. Hollowell, 168 A.D.2d 970. The Court further acknowledged that “the cases are unanimous in holding that there must be some modicum of either direct or circumstantial evidence of misappropriation or diversion of trust monies sufficient to allow a fact-finder to reasonably infer that a defendant charged under these sections, by virtue of the misappropriation or diversion, or by some indicia thereof, did, in fact, intend to deprive the homeowner of the trust monies and/or to appropriate them to himself or a third person.”

In the instant matter, the Court held that there was no Grand Larceny or Scheme to Defraud in part because, “[c]ommon sense and business practice instructs that failure to forward trust monies within 31 days may often constitute merely a non-larcenous business decision.” Not only did the Court acknowledge that failure to forward trust monies within a statutorily prescribed time frame was insufficient to establish the intent to misappropriate, the prosecution “presented absolutely no evidence of where the monies received went, if anywhere, and presented no evidence of any…diversion by [the] [d]efendant.” This complete failure on the part of the prosecution was insufficient to establish, even in the light most favorable to the prosecution, that defendant’s criminal and larcenous intent.

In the event that you or a loved one is charged with Grand Larceny, Scheme to Defraud or any criminal offense, contact the former Manhattan prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP to get experience and knowledge working on your side.

NY criminal defense attorneys and their clients should take notice. Recently, New York County (Manhattan) Criminal Court Judge Elisa S. Koenderman rendered a decision in People v. Carlos Rivera, 2008NY031540, finding that it is not sufficient to support a charge of Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia in the Second Degree (Penal Law §220.50[2]) where the drug in question is marijuana. In other words, the criminal intent must relate to narcotics or stimulants. Marijuana is neither type of contraband. Although the decision is applicable only in the realm of the charge of Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia, this decision is one that experienced New York criminal defense attorneys and criminal defense law firms, such as the former Manhattan prosecutors of Crotty Saland, LLP, should add to their arsenal.

In the instant matter, the complaint alleged that the police arrested the defendant after they found one plastic bag containing marihuana, a scale and over fifty small ziplock bags in his apartment. Additionally, the defendant admitted the contraband was his.

The criminal defense attorney argued the complaint was facially insufficient to support the charge of Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia because marihuana, not a narcotic drug, was the only “drug” seized. Furthermore, the criminal defense attorney asserted that the scale, bags and possession of material suitable to and intended for use in the packaging of marihuana cannot be considered drug paraphernalia. The defendant’s counsel also claimed that according to Penal Law §220.50(2), criminally using drug paraphernalia requires the knowing possession of "any material suitable for the packaging of . . . narcotic drugs or stimulants under circumstances evincing an intent to use . . . the same for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, packaging or dispensing . . . any narcotic drug or stimulant." Lastly, both the Penal Law and Public Health Law specifically define marihuana and differentiate it from narcotic drugs and stimulants.

Agreeing with the defendant, the court noted that §220.50(2) “is only applicable when the circumstances evince an intent to participate in the illegal distribution of narcotic drugs or stimulants is persuasive.” Moreover, the court found that “it is clear that Penal Law §220.50(2) only applies to circumstances evincing criminal intent regarding narcotic drugs or stimulants, and not to similar circumstances regarding marihuana.” Going even further, the court recognized that the “Legislature…made even more clear by the very structure of the Penal Law as a whole…that Article 220 deals with all controlled substances offenses, whereas marihuana offenses are addressed by an entirely separate article, Article 221.” In dismissing the complaint, the court refused to expand the reach and parameters of Penal Law §220.50(2) by defining marihuana as a narcotic drug. At bottom, regardless of whether or not the scale and bags were used for the packaging of marijuana, marijuana is not a narcotic and may not be a basis for the charges relating to drug paraphernalia.

In the event you find yourself involved in any crime or offense associated with marijuana, narcotics or drugs, contact Crotty Saland, LLP, so that a plan tailored specifically to your needs can by developed and implanted to protect your rights, freedom and integrity.

I have blogged extensively on the criminal law and specifically as it relates to New York criminal defense and the charges of Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. In fact, as criminal defense attorney at Crotty Saland, LLP and a former Manhattan prosecutor, I have successfully handled these crimes more times than I can count. In the past year alone, I represented two clients in Manhattan Supreme Court both of whom avoided jail. One of those individuals was alleged to have stolen multiple millions of dollars while the other was alleged to have stolen property valued in the multiple tens of thousands of dollars. While the charges may be the same - Grand Larceny - each crime and each person accused requires a unique and individualized plan of attack to analyze and implement a formidable defense. These crimes are not going away any time soon.

Only yesterday, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office announced the indictment of Richard Garaventa, Jr. for stealing $2,514,519 from his former employer, Morgan Stanley. Mr.Garaventa is accused of issuing fifty checks that he ultimately funneled back to himself for a period of approximately seven years. The checks ranged in value from about $8,000 to over $70,000. Mr. Garaventa is charged with Grand Larceny in the First Degree, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the First Degree and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

At this stage, Mr. Garaventa knows or should know how critical it is to put his defense into motion whatever it may be. The necessity of a implementing an aggressive defense is important in all matters, but is imperative in cases where the law requires a mandatory minimum sentence if you are convicted of the charges. In the area of Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Mr. Garaventa has exceed that threshold.

Even if Mr. Garaventa's alleged theft does not require imprisonment if convicted, that does not guarantee he will not end up incarcerated. Although the law may not require a mandatory minimum a judge may still impose a significant jail sentence. Assuming you have no record, however, a theft must equal or exceed $1,000,000 before jail times is required by law. If you possess or steal that money then one to three years is the minimum sentence you will face and the maximum would be eight and one third to twenty five years in prison. Again, if you steal less - $1000 or more, $3,000 or more or $50,000 or more - you may not face a mandatory minimum sentence, but you do face up to four, seven and fifteen years respectively. Make no mistake, a prosecutor and judge will not throw their hands up in the air if you are accused of stealing $5,000, $15,000 or $60,000 merely because jail is not required by law if you are convicted. If you do not implement a plan with an experienced criminal defense attorney to defend your freedom and liberty you could, and likely will, find yourself behind bars for years to come.

Having been prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office for a combined fourteen years, the NY criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP have experienced a vast number of the offenses from Disorderly Conduct, Forgery and Grand Larceny to Burglary, Kidnapping and Assault. While our experience and knowledge is a tremendous asset for our clients, we always encourage our clients to educate themselves on the criminal law as well. There is little doubt that having a basic understanding of New York criminal law is the best defense to keep you from getting in trouble in the first place.

One particular crime that is somewhat common is the crime of Burglary. When many people think of Burglary, they don’t recognize how easy it is to get caught up in one of the most serious violent crimes. Depending on the level of the offense, Burglary ranges from a “D” felony punishable by up to seven years to a “B” felony punishable by up to twenty five years in state prison.

According to Penal Law 140.20, one is guilty of Burglary in the Third Degree when one knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein. A simple reading of this statute makes it clear how easy it is to get caught up in this crime. If you enter a building without permission to do so and you have the intent to commit a crime you can be charged with Burglary. It is very important to understand that you merely need to have the intent to commit a crime while there…it does not have to be completed. A great way to look at this is if you go into a building that houses a clothing store and you are not supposed to be inside it and you intend to steal the clothes…you can be charged with Burglary. That’s correct. You do not have to actually lay one finger on those clothes.

While it seems that this offense is clear in its scope, a further review of Burglary may alter your view. Pursuant to this article, a “building” is also defined as an enclosed motor truck or an enclosed motor truck trailer. You read that right. If you break into a truck that has an enclosed back (your “average” work or business truck similar to a UPS or moving truck) you are committing Burglary in the Third Degree. While this offense is a “D” felony punishable by up to seven years, if you enter an apartment where someone sleeps at night, then the crime is elevated to a “C” felony punishable by a minimum of three and one half years and a maximum of fifteen years. In fact, if you enter a building that houses some dwellings and businesses, for legal purposes, if the building contains any dwellings you can be charged for the more serious “C” felony.

Although this entry is just the Burglary basics, I will address the different degrees, definitions, and cases addressing this offense in the future. Until then, if you find yourself or a loved one charged with Burglary or any other crime, contact Crotty Saland, LLP to fight for your rights, integrity and liberty.

A bunch of people are in need of New York criminal defense attorneys...immediately. The New York Attorney General's Office announced the arrest of twelve people allegedly involved in a Bronx based construction equipment and luxury car theft ring. The defendants are charged with Enterprise Corruption, Forgery, Grand Larceny, Conspiracy and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. Luis Torres Gonzalez (a.k.a. “Sanki”), Reynaldo Estrella (a.k.a. “Ray”), Ernie Muriel (a.k.a. “Ivan”), Alfonso Tejada, Nestali Garcia Rosa (a.k.a. “Junior”), Noel S. Gonzalez (a.k.a. “Joaquin”), Jose L. Sanchez, Higinio M. Mercedes (a.k.a. “Biembo”), Kenneth Estrella (a.k.a. “Kenny”), Alton Young (a.k.a “Fat Ray”) and Jean Carlos Almontes are among the men who were targeted in "Operation Tag Sale." According to the Attorney General's website, these men had an organization that worked together to steal over fifty vehicles from construction sites, public streets and garages. The defendants have been charged in a 100 count indictment and face up to twenty five years in state prison if convicted on the top charge.

"Some people try to smuggle jewels out of the country. These individuals tried to sneak off with Caterpillars and Hummers. What they lacked in finesse they tried to compensate with audacity. But it made no difference. They met with the same end - arrest - thanks to the outstanding work of NYPD auto crime detectives and their partners in the Attorney General’s Organized Crime Task Force,” said Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.

According to the Attorney General's Office, the defendants were caught through the assistance of wiretaps and surveillance. It is alleged that their activities were so brazen as to drive a Caterpillar excavator right off of a construction site and down the thruway. Once this and other vehicles were stolen, their VIN numbers were forged and "washed."

As a former prosecutor with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office I am keenly aware how much time and effort prosecutors and the police put into long term investigations such as this. As a criminal defense attorney I am equally familiar with the time and effort it will take to zealously advocate and fight to maintain these defendants' liberty and rights. Both sides have a long road ahead of them.

Just about every day in the NYC newspapers we read about someone being arrested for selling drugs such as cocaine, crack, heroin or marijuana. While the sale of drugs in NY can be a serious felony (marijuana sale is usually a misdemeanor in most situations) requiring mandatory prison, NY criminal defense attorneys often defend clients allegedly selling other controlled substances as well. In fact, the Brooklyn District Attorneys Office announced the indictment yesterday of Dr. Richard Lucente, a physician, for allegedly selling prescriptions for steroids. That's right...Dr. Lucente is indicted for selling the prescription for a controlled substance and not the actual drug. While not as common of a charge as Criminal Sale of a Controlled substance, Dr. Lucente is indicted for Criminal Sale of a Prescription for a Controlled Substance. According to the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office, "Lucente is charged with providing patients with prescriptions for steroids and human growth hormones, for a fee, when those patients had no medical need for the drugs." Prosecutors further allege that Lucente would steer patients to Lowen’s Drug Store in Bay Ridge. In exchange for directing business to the pharmacy, Lowen's Drug Store paid Lucente nearly $30,000 in kickback over a two to three year period.

Under New York criminal law, a person is guilty of Criminal Sale of a Prescription for a Controlled Substance when, being a practitioner, that person knowingly and unlawfully sells a prescription for a controlled substance. In simple terms, a person is guilty of Criminal Sale of a Prescription for a Controlled Substance if they are a doctor, or similar professional, and they knowingly sell a prescription not merely for any medicine, but for a controlled substance such as steroids.

While prosecutors, Dr. Lucente and his criminal defense attorney are the only ones that know where this particular case will go, one thing is certain. Law enforcement is not only going to pursue the drug trade in the streets. Whether drugs or the means to obtain them are being sold and traded in a Park Avenue suite, a physician's office, or somewhere in Harlem, law enforcement presence is not going away anytime soon. If you believe you are a target of a drug investigation or any criminal investigation, contact the criminal defense attorneys and former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP.

A skilled New York criminal defense attorney may be able to beat your criminal case outright or work out a great deal for his or her clients in the face of overwhelming evidence. Sometimes there is a technicality requiring dismissal of the case such as a speedy trial issue or a facial insufficiency problem with the accusatory instrument. Other times, through hard work and perseverance, your criminal defense attorney may be able to get you a deal that avoids any criminal record at all. While an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD)is the ultimate goal in a case where a deal is reached, a second option is a Disorderly Conduct plea.

As previously discussed in an earlier entry, an ACD will result in your case being dismissed and sealed within six months to a year. Although a Disorderly Conduct will not be dismissed, a plea to this charge will result in a conviction for a violation. Not only is a violation not a crime, but the violation will be sealed as well.

Disorderly Conduct, Penal Law 240.20, has many subdivisions. According to the Penal Law, a person is guilty of this violation when, "with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof," a person does one of the following:

(1) Engages in violent or threatening behavior
(2) Makes unreasonable noise
(3) Uses obscene language or gestures in a public place
(4) Disturbs a lawful assembly without any lawful authority
(5) Obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic
(6) Congregates with others in a public place and refuse to disperse despite police requests
(7) Creates a hazardous condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.

Well, that sounds fine and good, but if you are charged with a felony of Grand Larceny for stealing $2,750 then how can you plead to a violation of Disorderly Conduct if your actions did not fall into one of the above categories? Although Disorderly Conduct is not a "lesser included" offense that naturally stems from Grand Larceny or other potential charges, prosecutors offer this disposition as an alternative to the much more significant crime that you are charged with. A Disorderly Conduct is a practical means negotiated between prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys to avoid any criminal ramifications for the crime you are alleged to have committed. Certainly, a plea to a crime of theft, especially a felony, would have serious consequences on your life. Alternatively, a plea to a Disorderly Conduct, if appropriate in your particular circumstance, would have significantly less.

The criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP understand the importance of not only zealously advocating for our clients regardless of the crimes they are accused of committing, but also know how critical it is to conduct our practice in an ethical and honest manner. This cannot be understated. Unfortunately, not all attorneys practice their profession in this matter. In fact, in the matter of only a few weeks, a third attorney has been indicted or arrested for alleged misconduct in New York City. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office announced the indictment today of Brian Lam for Grand Larceny in the Second Degree. Mr. Lam allegedly stole $331,376.42 from the New York County Lawyer’s Association (NYCLA) in a payroll scheme after working for that not-for-profit organization for almost two decades.

Prosecutors have alleged that Mr. Lam, who was responsible for payroll, called in extra compensation to himself. These activities allegedly occurred from 2005 through 2008. Mr. Lam is to be arraigned today in Manhattan Supreme Court.

Any NY criminal defense attorney can explain very simply the power of DNA in tying suspects to crimes. Unfortunately for a recently arrested Brooklyn man, it does not appear that anyone ever explained this to him. According to the Brooklyn (Kings County) District Attorney's Office, the Grand Jury indicted Erick Clements about a week ago for Attempted Assault in the First Degree, Attempted Assault in the Second Degree, Attempted Robbery in the First Degree and Attempted Arson in the Second Degree. It is alleged that Mr. Clements "attempted [to] assault...a subway token clerk by trying to light him and his booth on fire during an attempted robbery." This incident occurred back in November of 2007.

Regardless of the accusation, the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office still must prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. While that proposition might be easier at certain times than other times, in Mr. Clements' case, the District Attorney's Office is armed with very powerful evidence. That evidence is DNA.

In this particular case, it is alleged that at the time or shortly after Mr. Clements tried to burn and rob the subway token clerk, Mr. Clements lost his hat and fled. The police recovered the hat and sent it to the lab be tested for DNA. The test revealed DNA and after investigation by law enforcement, the police linked that DNA to Mr. Clements. As a result, over one year later the Grand Jury indicted Mr. Clements.

Although Mr. Clements has a long battle before him, DNA alone does not equate to guilt. Certainly, as stated above, DNA may be overwhelming in many circumstances. However, DNA does not equal guilt and other facts must be addressed. Here, is it possible that Mr. Clements was present when the incident occurred, but he was not involved? Did Mr. Clements run when he saw the fire, lost his hat, but took no part? Was there any other DNA in the hat? Is there video establishing or corroborating that Mr. Clements was there or did someone else have the hat that contained Mr. Clements' DNA? These are just some questions that are clearly relevant. Not knowing the facts beyond the press release, I am not prepared to answer how, if at all, the answers to these questions specifically changes anything. Irrespective of the facts in this particular case, DNA is a powerful piece of evidence in any criminal case that can implicate and even vindicate the accused.

You should not have to rely solely on your New York criminal defense attorney to explain every facet of every law. While the criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP, will take the time to explain the law and navigate you through the murky waters of the criminal justice system, educating yourself and being prepared is often one of the best ways to avoid needing a criminal defense attorney in the first place.

Criminal defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges often throw around words that may be confusing to a person not involved in the criminal justice system. As a way to jump start your understanding of the law we will address a few of those words and their definitions.

Article 10 of the New York State Penal Law defines the following terms:

(1) Offense - Generally, an offense is conduct that is punishable by a term of imprisonment.

(2) Violation - A violation is an offense, not including a traffic infraction, where the potential sentence cannot be greater than fifteen days jail. It is important to note that a violation is not a crime. Therefore, if you plead guilty to a violation you will not have a criminal record as a result of that particular plea.

(3) Misdemeanor - Like a violation, a misdemeanor is an offense that does not include a traffic violation. A potential sentence for a misdemeanor exceeds the fifteen days of a violation, but cannot be greater than one year in jail. Misdemeanors are described as "A" misdemeanors, "B" misdemeanors and "unclassified" misdemeanors. While "A" misdemeanors are punishable by up to one year, "B" misdemeanors are punishable by up to ninety days jail.

(4) Felony - A felony is an offense where the punishment may exceed the one year maximum associated with misdemeanors. Felonies are range from an "E" felony to an "A" felony.

(5) Crime - Again, a violation is not a crime. A crime is either a misdemeanor or a felony. If you have been convicted of a violation such as disorderly conduct, Penal Law 240.20, you would not have a criminal record as a result of that particular plea or conviction.

The above information is not an all encompassing tutorial on the criminal law in New York, but at a minimum it can put you on the right path to understanding charges, how they are classified, and the ramifications. If you find yourself the target of or arrested for any offense, contact Crotty Saland, LLP, to protect your rights, liberty and integerity.