New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Although not a commonly seen charge by criminal defense attorneys in New York City, the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP know that violations of Agriculture and Market Law Section 353 (A.M.L. §353) are far from atypical. A.M.L. §353 provides, in relevant part:

“A person who overdrives, overloads, tortures or cruelly beats or unjustifiably injures, maims, mutilates or kills any animal, whether wild or tame, and whether belonging to himself or to another, or deprives any animal of necessary sustenance, food or drink, or neglects or refuses to furnish it such sustenance or drink, or causes, procures or permits any animal to be overdriven, overloaded, tortured, cruelly beaten, or unjustifiably injured, maimed, mutilated or killed, or to be deprived of necessary food or drink, or who willfully sets on foot, instigates, engages in, or in any way furthers any act of cruelty to any animal, or any act tending to produce such cruelty, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.”

As both a Manhattan prosecutor and as a criminal defense attorney, I have handled, seen and heard of cases of horrific animal abuse. Very often, defendants claim that they were unaware of the abuse or neglect, they tried to render assistance and aid, but failed or the animal was not theirs. While sometimes the abuse is clear an obvious such as burning or breaking the limbs of animals, often the abuse is “merely” a failure to act.

Early in December 2008, A Kings (Brooklyn) County Criminal Court judge addressed AML 353 in the context of a failure to act. In People v. Charles Curcio, 2008KN021343, the accusatory instrument alleged that the defendant’s dog had a “prominent mass protruding from her rear end, which subsequently required surgery and six days of intensive care.” A physician stated that the dog suffered needlessly. Additionally, the defendant admitted that the dog was his and that he did not take the dog to receive treatment.

In denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the Court found that the complaint and supporting deposition “allege that Defendant knew the dog had a mass on its rear end and that Defendant did not and would not take said dog to the veterinarian for medical attention.” Furthermore, according to the complaint, the defendant’s failure to obtain medical care could have resulted in the death of the dog. In order to save the dog’s life the surgery and six days of intensive care were necessary and this was accompanied by needless suffering. “[T]hough perhaps not complete enough to sustain a conviction, [it is] sufficient to establish a prima facie case. The Court went one step further and noted that “[f]actual issues of this nature render cases of failure to provide medical care to an animal under A.M.L. §353 particularly unsuitable for determination on motion, and except in the most extreme cases, are best reserved for trial.”

As addressed above, while this particular crime is not one that is commonly seen, your criminal defense attorney needs to be prepared to analyze the facts of your case and the allegations against you no matter what they may be. Whatever your circumstance, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP are ready to expect the unexpected, work with you to develop a plan of attack, and implement that plan to get you where you need to be.

As a follow up to my earlier post, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has announced a 227 count indictment of 18 individuals in an identity theft and check fraud scheme. As I correctly noted in the original post, these defendants are alleged to have perpetrated a scheme involving the crimes of Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Identity Theft, Conspiracy, Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information and Scheme to Defraud. As a former Manhattan prosecutor who was one of the first assigned to the Identity Theft Unit upon its creation, I know the Identity Theft Unit will vigorously and thoroughly prosecute the alleged offenders. Depending on the individual and their applicable charges, the defendants face up to 25 years in state prison.

The defendants include:

Jasper Grayson, a/k/a “Lyte,” James Malloy, a/k/a “Sal” and a/k/a “Sah,” Lamott Matthews a/k/a “L,” Allahson Clay, a/k/a “Reefy,” Albert Paulin, a/k/a “AB,” Lance Paulin, a/k/a “LA,” Alvin Joseph, a/k/a “Scooter," Edward Johnson, Jr., a/k/a “Big Mike,” Larry Garcia, a/k/a “Spanish Larry,” Raymond Penn, a/k/a “Charlie,” Raven Moses, Sheena Poindexter, Renece Razor, Ilaura Walker, Keisha Polonio, Christopher Deboer, Tauheed Mitchell and Kelly Snider.

Prosecutors allege that:

"[T]he defendants obtained personal and bank account information belonging to 500 identity theft victims and used it primarily to manufacture thousands of counterfeit checks. By fraudulently cashing and depositing the counterfeit checks, the defendants stole over $1.4 million from one bank’s accounts and substantial additional sums from other banks. Victims of this scam included private individuals, corporations, religious institutions, hospitals, and schools, as well as city and state government agencies."

It is further claimed that:

"The defendants regularly acquired the necessary data to generate counterfeit checks with the help of bank employees recruited to participate in the operation. These employees, often tellers, had access both to the banks’ computer systems and to large numbers of valid checks processed during legitimate customer transactions. In return for cash payments, the recruited tellers photocopied valid customer checks and printed out copies of customer profiles, which contained the customers’ names, addresses, social security numbers, bank account numbers and account balances."

"Search warrants into two locations associated with the defendants revealed "a desktop computer, blank check stock, stolen customer profiles from various banks, payroll stubs, copies of legitimate checks, hundreds of counterfeit checks, ledgers with names of [individuals who cashed fraudulent checks] and amounts stolen on various dates, check-making software, fake state identification cards and credit cards issued in the names of identity theft victims."

As is the case for each of these defendants, those charged with a crime are innocent until proven guilty. An indictment is not evidence of guilt. However, it is imperative to recognize that an indictment is extremely significant and points towards an intense legal battle ahead for each of these defendants. Regardless of the crime, you should always retain experienced criminal counsel to fight to protect your rights, liberty and integrity. Crotty Saland, LLP is ready and able to do just that.

The white collar criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have learned that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office will announce the indictment today of 18 people, including accused ring leader James Malloy, in an alleged counterfeit check fraud scheme that utilized forged NYPD checks to perpetrate a multi-million dollar theft.

According to media reports, up to 40 people may have been arrested. It is alleged that the scheme operated by having an individual deposit a forged check into a bogus account. A teller, who was in on the scheme, allegedly provided the fraudsters with accurate account and check information to enable the fraudsters to create the fake checks and deposit them. In all, it is alleged that hundreds of checks were drawn off the accounts of about 20 companies.

When James Malloy was arrested and a search warrant was executed at his home, sources have stated that they found hundreds of counterfeit checks as well as the profiles of customers at banks and the magnetic paper to create the forged checks.

Although the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has not issued a press release and an indictment has not been unsealed as of the time this entry was drafted, I anticipate that some of the charges these individuals will face may include Grand Larceny, Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Falsifying Business Records, Identity Theft, Conspiracy and potentially Enterprise Corruption depending on the structure of the organization. More importantly, depending on which charge these people face and their criminal history, a sentence of state prison is a very real possibility.

To better understand the above mentioned charges and to educate yourself on the law, feel free to review the blog and its entries as they apply to Fraud Related Offenses, Identity Theft and White Collar Crimes.

*** UPDATE ***

With Memorial Day Weekend upon us, many people unfortunately make the mistake of drinking and driving in New York State and NYC. As a NY criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor at Crotty Saland, LLP, I have defended and prosecuted individuals charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI). I can tell you that law enforcement and the courts vigorously prosecute DWIs regardless of whether it is your first time. Make no mistake, a DWI is a very serious crime that can have horrific results and that fact is not lost on prosecutors or the courts. That being said, no matter what crime you are accused of, even DWI, the police must still act within the confines of the law. Your rights should not and cannot be violated no matter the circumstances.

In the May 8, 2009 Queens Criminal Court decision of People v. Steven H. Noreiga, 2008QN001052, a NY criminal defense lawyer did his best to protect his client's rights after he was arrested and charged with DWI. In that matter, the defendant made an illegal u-turn. Upon stopping the defendant, the officer noticed the strong odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath. Shortly thereafter, the defendant was asked to take a breathalyzer at the scene where he "blew" a .188. The police officer then drove the car and parked it near the precinct while the passengers who were in the vehicle went there as well. A while later, and after determining that the defendant was not the owner of the vehicle, the officer went to secure the vehicle. At that point he noticed six 12 ounce bottles of Corona beer. Four of these bottles were opened with varying amounts of alcohol inside. During motion practice, the defendant's attorney challenged the probable cause to arrest the defendant, the breathalyzer result at the precinct, as well as the recovery of the bottles of beer.

The court decision after the jump (be prepared, its long...)

Continue reading " NY Criminal Defense and Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) in NYC " »

Whether you are accused of a "street crime" in New York such as Assault or Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance (selling drugs) or, in the alternative, you are accused of a White Collar crime such as Money Laundering or Grand Larceny, there are certain defenses specifically outlined in the Penal Law that you need to review with an experienced criminal defense attorney such as the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP. One of those "affirmative" defenses is Entrapment.

According to Penal Law Section 40.05 - Entrapment - "it is an affirmative defense that the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was induced or encouraged to do so by a public servant, or by a person acting in cooperation with a public servant, seeking to obtain evidence against him for purpose of criminal prosecution, and when the methods used to obtain such evidence were such as to create a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by a person not otherwise disposed to commit it. Inducement or encouragement to commit an offense means active inducement or encouragement. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment."

William Donnino, the author of the practice commentaries for McKinney's, states that the purpose of the Entrapment defense "is to discourage the use of overzealous methods by law enforcement officials to trap the unwary innocent into commission of an offense. Thus, the main thrust of the section is against pressure methods which may cause the commission of an offense by one who is not ordinarily disposed to commit it. As a practical matter, therefore, the defense of entrapment would not be available to the person who regularly engages in illegal enterprise." That being said, the legal reality is that this "defense is available to all defendants and is not limited to the 'unwary innocent'." People v. Yore, 36 A.D.2d 818 (1st Dept. 1971)

Because the courts hold every person's due process rights to the highest level, even those individuals who are "predisposed" to committing crimes may still be the victims of Entrapment by the police. According to the Court of Appeals in People v. Isaacson, 44 N.Y.2d 511 (1978), when deciding whether this defense is available to these individuals, the courts examine numerous factors including:

(1) whether the police manufactured a crime which otherwise would not likely have occurred, or merely involved themselves in an ongoing criminal activity;

(2) whether the police themselves engaged in criminal of improper conduct repugnant to a sense of justice;

(3) whether the defendant's reluctance to commit the crime is overcome by appeals to humanitarian instincts such as sympathy or past friendship, by temptation of exorbitant gain, or by persistent solicitation in the face of unwillingness; and

(4) whether the record reveals simply a desire to obtain a conviction with no reading that the police motive is to prevent further crime or protect the populace.

It is important to recognize that Entrapment is an "affirmative defense." Therefore, the defendant bears the burden of proof. Although a defendant does not have to prove Entrapment beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is legally described as preponderance of the evidence. Regardless of the standard, an Entrapment defense is not one that will merely fall into place as a case or trial proceeds. Consult with a criminal defense attorney to identify and investigate the elements and evidence you will need to successfully establish your Entrapment defense.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

From Andrew Cuomo to Robert Morgenthau, state and local prosecutors continue to vigorously prosecute crimes relating to Prostitution, Permitting Prostitution, and Promoting Prostitution. NY criminal defense attorneys experienced in these crimes, such as the criminal defense lawyers and former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP, know that these offenses are only the tip of the iceburg. More significant crimes of Enterprise Corruption and Money Laundering lurk behind every corner where crews and organizations run these large scale escort enterprises. Case in point...the unsealed indictment in Queens County against seven alleged co-conspirators who ran "Room Service Entertainment."

The 47 Count indictment unsealed today against Scott "Sal'' Rosenberg, 45; Patricia "Nikki'' Krupa, 32; Josef Davenport, 31; Joanna "Anna'' Mercado, 24; Sylvia "Jamie'' Soto, 29; Lina "Tina'' Vazquez; and Barbara "Lisa'' Morris, 48, accuses each of the individuals with Enterprise Corruption and related crimes. Enterprise Corruption requires that an organization have an "ascertainable structure" and is punishable by up to 25 years in state prison. Both Rosenberg and Davenport are alleged to be the mind and money behind the operation and ran the crew.

The Attorney General's Office had been investigating this ring that allegedly advertised with the Village Voice as well as CraigsList from June 2007 through December 2008. According to the Attorney General's website, the individuals in this team had distinct roles from bookers to prostitutes to the financial men behind the organization. Terms such as "skiing" were allegedly used to discuss sexual relations or "GFE" while "rock climbing" was used to arrange for parties with drugs. The ring allegedly operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in NYC and the surrounding suburbs. Craigslist has been under fire lately for permitting such organizations to flourish on the web.

Follow Crotty Saland, LLP on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

As a follow up to an earlier post, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has announced that 17 individuals who worked at a now defunct securities firm have been indicted by a New York County Grand Jury for allegedly operating a racketeering scheme that scammed over six million dollars in unlawful commissions. The Manhattan Grand Jury indicted the defendants on the charges of Enterprise Corruption, Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Securities Fraud and Falsifying Business Records. As a former Manhattan prosecutor who has supervised prosecutions of numerous multi-million dollar fraud schemes including a two million dollar "pump and dump" scheme with the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as a NY white collar criminal defense attorney who has represented individuals accused of multi-million dollar fraud crimes, I can say with confidence that these defendants and their criminal defense attorneys have a long road ahead of them.

The The Grand Jury indicted 17 defendants. Among them are Joseph Stevens & Company, Inc., Joseph Sorbara, Steven Mrakowiz, Craig Shapiro, John, Moraitis, Massimo Martinucci, Peter Orthos, Alan Ferraro, Charles Raspa, Scott Tierney, John Micciola, Steven Scarcella, Michael Tripodi, Douglas Costabile, James Rathgeber, Matthew Menies and Haradjin Mucovic. Because each of the defendants are charged with the top count crime of Enterprise Corruption, they all face a minimum of one to three years if convicted and a maximum of eight and one third to twenty five years in prison.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office:

"[T]he defendants defrauded 800 victims in more than 5,000 trades valued at $151,286,804.44. By manipulating the market value of carefully selected stocks, the defendants generated more than $6.2 million in unlawful, undisclosed commissions, in violation of New York law and the trust of their customers." Furthermore, "[t]he investigation further revealed that the defendants repeatedly worked to capture undisclosed compensation while trading stocks, often by manipulating the stock price higher after having pre-arranged orders from their customers. In some cases, the stocks the customers purchased on defendants’ recommendations lost significant value in the days and months following the transactions."

As this case unfolds it will be interesting to see what defense each of these individuals set forth. Was there an "ascertainable structure" in their crew as required under Enterprise Corruption? Do any of the affirmative defenses to Falsifying Business Records apply in this case? Whatever the defense may be, it is imperative that these defendants assess the case and implement their plan of action. Even a small delay could be fatal to their defense. If you or a loved one find yourself accused or investigated for any white collar crime, contact the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP so that we can fight to preserve your liberty, rights and integrity.

According to published reports, 17 brokers and securities specialists are to be arraigned today in Manhattan Supreme Court after a Grand Jury indicted each of them in a scheme defrauding hundreds of investors out of over $150 million dollars. As a NY white collar defense attorney who has represented defendants charged with multi-million dollar fraud schemes and as a former Manhattan prosecutor who supervised the prosecution of a "pump and dump" involving over two million dollars in theft, I know first hand how the assistant district attorneys likely investigated this case and will prosecute the alleged offenders. At a minimum, those defendants who are charged with the actual theft or acting in concert to perpetrate a Grand Larceny in an amount of one million dollars or more will be facing one to three years in prison, but as much as eight and one third to twenty five years. However these defendant's decide to proceed, they better act quickly or it has the potential to get significantly worse.

As I receive more information I will share it with you. Check back for an update.

UPDATED

A New York City criminal defense lawyer has successfully argued in Brooklyn Criminal Court that the pending Trespass charges, pursuant to Penal Law §140.15, §140.10(a) and §140.05, against his client should be dismissed for facial insufficiency. The Brooklyn Criminal Court decision in People v. Darrell Weatherspoon, 2008KN076633, was published last week. For those readers who do not have access to this material, the New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP, will summarize this important legal decision for you.

By way of background, a person is guilty of Criminal Trespass in the Second Degree pursuant to PL §140.15 when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling. A person is guilty of Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree pursuant to PL §140.10(a) when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building upon real property which is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders. Lastly, a person is guilty of Trespass, a violation pursuant to Penal Law §140.05, when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises. A person enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises when he is not licensed or privileged to do so.

In pertinent part, the information against the defendant alleged that the officer (deponent) observed:

"[The defendant] on the first floor of a New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) building at 552 Flushing Avenue, Kings County, a dwelling, which is posted with signs saying, 'Loitering and trespassing in lobby roof hallway and stairs is not permitted. Violators are subject to arrest and prosecution by the Police Department.' Deponent further states that defendant was neither a tenant nor a guest in the above-mentioned premises. Deponent describes herself as custodian of the dwelling and states that defendant did not have permission or authority to enter and remain in those premises."

Citing People v. Brunson (8/14/1995 NYLJ 32[col][Criminal Court, Queens County, 1995]), the court noted that the trespass signs must be "conspicuously posted" and merely indicating there were in fact trespass signs were posted in not sufficient. Without this, knowledge that the defendant did not have permission to be on the premises cannot be imputed. Therefore, the complaint (actually an information) must allege in some capacity how or where the signs were posted to give the defendant notice.

The court further stated that:

"The People have shown nothing to support their contention that defendant had knowledge that his entrance into the building was unlawful. Sufficient pleading is particularly important in view of the facts that the defendant was not arrested inside the building where he is alleged to have trespassed but in front of another building, 53 Nostrand Avenue, and that defendant has denied having entered the subject building."

The decision in People v. Darrell Weatherspoon is important on many levels. Although it is not a Court of Appeals decision, the decision clearly set forth that the People must establish a defendant's knowledge that he did not have permission to be in or at a location. Merely stating there was a trespassing sign is not sufficient. This decision further fortifies the importance to retain an experienced criminal defense attorney so he or she can challenge the facial sufficiency of an information. Some questions your criminal defense attorney should examine are whether the property was fenced completely, the defendant was arrested near or next to a trespass sign, the trespass signs were posted at all the entrances, or the defendant made an admission.

Whatever the case, the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP know how to examine and analyze the facts, assess the strengths and weakness, and implement a strategy to protect your liberty, rights, and integrity.

As a NY criminal defense attorney and a former Manhattan prosecutor under Robert Morgenthau, I have defended or supervised numerous multi-million dollar investigations into Identity Theft, Credit Card Fraud, Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Grand Larceny, Falsifying Business Records and related fraud schemes. In fact, prior to starting Crotty Saland, LLP, I was assigned to the elite Identity Theft Unit when it was created by DA Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. In that capacity I received extensive training and hands on experience in the "trenches" and "front line" of Identity Theft and related crimes.

It comes as no surprise to me that another fraud scheme has reared its head and was ultimately broken up in Queens today. According to the Queens District Attorney's Office, Operation Plastic Pipe Line began in 2007 and resulted in the multiple hundred count indictment for Enterprise Corruption and the arrest of dozens of people. It is alleged that this ring, led by Wole "Shola" Ogunwen, used multiple "cells" to defraud banks and steal the personal identification of thousands of people. In the last year alone, it is alleged that the financial loss exceeded twelve million dollars. To perpetrate the crime, these cells would use counterfeit credit cards, set up fake accounts, withdraw funds from banks and purchase products to be shipped overseas. With strong ties to Nigeria, it is further claimed that this ring operated on a global level.

As a former prosecutor and a criminal defense attorney experienced in these crimes, I know that this twenty one month Identity Theft investigation was likely supported by members of federal and state law enforcement who conducted surveillance, issued subpoenas, executed search warrants and worked relentlessly. I also know that these defendants need to retain experienced criminal counsel or the situation they find themselves in will go from bad to worse.

Crotty Saland, LLP, is pleased to announced that Jeremy Saland, the treasurer of the New York City Bar Association's Small Law Firm Committee, is one of the panel members scheduled to speak at 6:00 pm this Tuesday, May 19, 2009, at the NYC Bar Association. This three credit CLE forum will include small law firm and solo practitioners who have forged out on their own recently as well as years ago. A range of issues will be addressed including, tax considerations, financing a business, generating clients and ethical obligations. Not only will this discussion be informative, but it will give you the opportunity to meet people who are in the same situation as you or who have already made the jump.

If you are interested in attending, the NYC Bar Association's website has more information.

Prosecutors, police and criminal defense attorneys in NY have known for a long time that prostitution, unlicensed massage, and other crimes relating to escort services have flourished on Craigslist. Due to pressure by numerous states and law enforcement agencies, Craigslist will no longer be permitting prostitution and escort services to be blatantly advertised on their website without scrutiny.

According to media reports, Craigslist executives informed Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal that the "erotic services" section would be removed in approximately one week and it would be replaced with an "adult services" section. Moreover, each advertisement will be reviewed by Craiglist to prevent the further proliferation of prostitution and escort related activities and materials.

Attorney General Blumenthal also noted that "[law enforcement] will be monitoring closely to make sure that this measure is more than a name change from 'erotic' to 'adult' and that the manual blocking is tough and effective to scrub prostitution and pornography...Our continuing investigation will assure that these steps are substance, not just spin, and that Craigslist really shuts down its open online red light district."

The change in policy is no surprise to the experienced NY criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP. Having seen crimes actually perpetrated and allegedly committed using the internet as a vehicle, the former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP saw the writing on the wall for Craigslist and other online classified sites. How the online escort trade, like any illegal activity, will re-invent itself has yet to be seen. Whatever form it takes, law enforcement will continue to pursue those believed to be responsible.

Follow Crotty Saland, LLP on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

I previously discussed the various theories that top White Collar NY criminal defense attorneys may confront when representing their clients in a Grand Larceny or Petit Larceny Case. As previously noted, the theories could include Larceny by trespassory taking, trick or even extortion. In this entry, I will address a different theory of Larceny. That theory is Larceny by false promise.

According to NY Penal Law 155.05(2)(d), a "person obtains property by false promise when, pursuant to a scheme to defraud, he obtains property of another by means of a representation, express or implied, that he or a third person will in the future engage in particular conduct, and when he does not intend to engage in such conduct or, as the case may be, does not believe that the third person intends to engage in such conduct."

So, in other words...if you are involved in a Scheme to Defraud and you make a representation that future conduct will occur, but you have no intent that it will, you may be guilty of Grand or Petit Larceny by false promise. Cases based on this theory, however, are not so clear and often need a trained legal eye to review.

What is of great importance and central to these matters is that the facts and circumstances of the case must be "wholly" consistent with guilty intent and inconsistent with innocent intent to a "moral certainty." This "moral certainty" standard is key to any prosecution of Larceny by false promise and one which the experienced NY criminal defense attorney's at Crotty Saland, LLP are ready to grapple with. It is imperative for both the defense and the prosecution to recognize that it is not legally sufficient to establish the defendant's desire that the particular promise would not be performed by the fact alone that the particular promise was not performed (read it slowly...make sense?!?!?).

Before continuing and analyzing this standard, it may be a good idea to re-read my entry regarding Scheme to Defraud (that crime is applicable to the theory of Larceny by false promise) so you can understand this offense in the proper context. Having done that, an examination of the Court of Appeals decision in People v. Ryan, 41 N.Y.2d 634 (1977) will further shed light on this issue.

In Ryan, the defendant was a partner is a bond brokerage business and he maintained an approved line of credit with a bank. In his business capacity, the defendant purchased retainage bonds that were to be held in custodial bank accounts for contractors that were doing work. In short, the defendant did not fulfill his promises and make his payments. In dismissing the charges against the defendant, the Court of Appeals found that "it cannot be said with any moral or reliable degree of certainty that...the defendant did not intend to complete the transaction."

Continue reading " Larceny By False Promise: Another Theory of Grand Larceny & Petit Larceny as it Relates to Your Criminal Defense " »

The top criminal defense attorneys in New York and New York City know there are many ways to "skin a cat" in order to achieve the best results for their clients in a criminal case. Sometimes we use "honey" and "sometimes" it is vinegar. A recent decision in Manhattan Criminal Court involving the charges of Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law 120.00(1)) and Reckless Driving (Vehicle and Traffic Law 1212) strengthen the "vinegar" approach by adding another judicial decision to our criminal defense arsenal of cases to utilize in a client's criminal defense.

In People v. Warmann DiPoumbi, 2008NY068631, decided April 28, 2009 and published in the New York Law Journal on May 7, 2009, a Manhattan Criminal Court Judge dismissed the charges of Assault and Reckless Driving based, in part, for facial insufficiency. The complaint alleged that the defendant drove through a stop sign without stopping. After the police stopped the defendant, the defendant opened the car door and the door struck the police officer causing "swelling and substantial pain."

Continue reading " One of the Best Ways to Beat Your Assault and Reckless Driving Case in NY - Challenge Facial Sufficiency " »

The best criminal defense attorneys and lawyers know that the laws regarding Criminal Possession of a Weapon as it relates to loaded firearms, guns, pistols and revolvers in New York are some of the strictest and most severe in the nation. Unless you can either beat the case or work out a favorable disposition, if your are charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon for possessing a loaded firearm outside your home or place of business and you do not have a permit to do so...you will face a minimum of 3.5 years in prison if convicted. It is just that simple.

Fortunately, the NY criminal defense lawyers and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have handled a significant number of these cases from both the defense and law enforcement side giving us a unique perspective on weapon crimes. This experience and knowledge was recently put to the test for the second time in as many weeks and once again we got a tremendous result.

Our client, a woman from the West Coast, was charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon for possessing a loaded firearm outside her home and without a permit in New York. Although she lacked the permit in New York, we were able to establish that our client purchased the gun legally, had a permit in her home state, lacked a criminal record, and other mitigating factors. Without going into specific details (our "trade secrets" one might say!!!) we were able to negotiate a non-criminal deal for our client despite the fact that she was alleged to have physically possessed the loaded pistol. That's right - no criminal record or jail at all...not even a day of community service!

As I always note, the results in one particular case do not guarantee the same results on a different case with the same or similar charges. What Crotty Saland, LLP does guarantee, however, is that we will tenaciously fight for our clients, utilize our traning and experience as prosecutors and defense attorneys, and work with you to put forth a compelling defense to maintain your freedom, integrity and livelihood.

In a report recently released by the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, nearly 96 percent of all Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrests in New York over the past three years resulted in a conviction. With this type of conviction rate it is clearly imperative that you retain experienced and skilled criminal defense attorneys who know how to handle DWI and DUI crimes. The criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland, LLP, are former Manhattan prosecutors who served under Robert Morgenthau and have prosecuted as well as defended these matters.

Having experienced criminal counsel is crucial because last year In New York City alone the police made approximately 10,000 DWI arrests. According to the report, DWI convictions in Manhattan were the worst throughout the city with "only" a 75 percent conviction rate. Although jail time is permitted by law, a fraction of those individuals convicted of DWI or DUI served any jail time.

Regardless of what the statistics tell us, we at Crotty Saland, LLP know that the last thing anyone accused of a crime wants to be is a statistic especially if they end up with a criminal record or a jail sentence. That is why we are available day or night to answer your questions, assess your case and to do our best to protect your rights, liberty and integrity.