New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Elizabeth Crotty, an attorney at the New York City and Manhattan based white collar criminal defense firm Crotty Saland, LLP, was interviewed earlier today for the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. As a former Manhattan prosecutor and a white collar criminal defense lawyer in New York, Ms. Crotty explained where she believed the Madoff case was heading after the sentencing of Mr. Madoff. Specifically, Ms. Crotty was asked about future indictments of other participants in Mr. Madoff's ponzi scheme. While Ms. Crotty is certainly not privy to the United State's Attorney's investigation, Ms. Crotty explained that assuming there are future indictments we should not expect to see those indictments for at least another six months. Ms. Crotty further stated that due to the magnitude of the case and the investigation, prosecutors still likely have many stones to overturn and a significant amount of work ahead of them to pursue other potential conspirators.

If you or a loved one is in need of legal representation and a criminal defense attorney for a white collar crime, contact the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP. Whatever your best defense may be, Jeremy Saland and Elizabeth Crotty will take the time to address your concerns, explain the legal process and implement what is needed to zealously defend your liberty, integrity and future.

It is fairly routine to read or hear about a NY criminal defense attorney representing an individual accused of a particular White Collar crime due to the conduct of the corporation he or she works for. It is not merely the United States Attorney's Office who prosecutes these crimes, but state and local offices such as the Manhattan District Attorney's Office that aggressively pursue these cases and crimes ranging from Grand Larceny and Falsifying Business Records to Scheme to Defraud and Money Laundering. The power of New York State and local prosecutors to charge individuals with crimes based on corporate conduct is found in Penal Law 20.25. According to this section, "[a] person is criminally liable for conduct constituting an offense which he performs or causes to be performed in the name of or in behalf of a corporation to the same extent as if such conduct were performed in his own name of behalf."

Decisions rendered by the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, further fortifies the ability of state and local prosecutors. In People v. Sakow, 45 N.Y.2d 131 (1978), the Court of Appeals found that a "defendant could properly be held criminally liable for violation of city administrative code based on his willful neglect and refusal to comply with violation orders issued by fire department where there was adequate proof from which it could be inferred that defendant was the active manager and dominant controlling force in corporations, in each of which he was principal and, at times, sole shareholder, and for which he acted in the absence of minutes and without a meeting of the board of directors."

This "piercing of the corporate veil" is far from atypical. In fact, a Queens County Supreme Court Justice held that Penal Law Section 20.25 "eliminates the possibility that a culpable defendant might evade criminal responsibility simply because he was acting in a corporate capacity or in the interests of a corporation. The corporate veil can be pierced, if appropriate, in criminal as well as civil cases. The culpable actor can no longer hide behind a corporate curtain." People v. Aquarian Age 2000 Inc., 85 Misc.2d 504 (Queens County 1976).

Obviously, both history and the Penal Law tell us that federal and state prosecutors have and will continue to prosecute individuals for their activities in corporate settings as they relate to criminal activity. Therefore, it is imperative to protect yourself from getting into legal "hot water," limit your exposure and preserve your career and freedom if you have been arrested or you are the target of an investigation. As former Manhattan prosecutors who supervised prosecutions into multi-million dollar fraud schemes and criminal defense attorneys who have represented clients in alleged multi-million dollar thefts, Crotty Saland, LLP stands ready to zealously fight on your behalf to preserve your freedom, rights, livelihood and integrity.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Joseph Ungar, CEO of ABEC Industries, Inc., pleaded guilty yesterday to Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree in New York County Supreme Court after an investigation revealed he had sold knock off industrial parts to the MTA. Mr. Unger also pleaded guilty to a crime related to his failure to properly pay taxes associated with his business. The ABEC Industries, Inc. also pleaded guilty to Identity Theft and Trademark Counterfeiting.

As a result of Mr. Ungar's plea, he will make full restitution of over $125,000 for the scheme. Additionally, he will be given a lifetime debarment from doing business with the MTA and serve five-years of probation. Mr. Unger must also pay over $200,000 in back taxes. If Mr. Unger fails to comply with the terms of his plea he will not be sentenced to probation, but instead could receive two to six years in state prison.

Between 2003 to 2008, Mr. Ungar fraudulently portrayed himself and his business as another person and another firm because of his alleged past ethical and professional lapses associated with his business. As a result, the MTA was duped into agreeing to contracts while unaware it was in fact Mr. Ungar. Mr. Ungar then supplied knock-off and counterfeit parts for MTA buses and subways. These parts were not American made, but made in China.

Beyond the crimes committed by Mr. Ungar, this case is even more interesting because the corporation pleaded guilty to a crime as well. More specifically, the top crime the corporation pleaded guilty to was Identity Theft for assuming the identity of another corporation or firm. While not common, this type of prosecution will likely gain steam where individuals and their corporations perpetrate frauds while assuming the identity of anther firm. As a result of ABEC's crimes, the company will cease operations and dissolve.

Rape, Sexual Abuse, Assault, Forcible Touching and Grand Larceny are a few of the charges Joseph Brooks, 71, faces today after the indictment against him was unsealed. Shawni Lucier, 42, Mr. Brook's assistant, was indicted on nine counts of Criminal Facilitation for her alleged role in the crimes. As Crotty Saland, LLP recently blogged, according to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Mr. Brooks allegedly raped and sexually assaulted eleven women in his upper east side apartment. It is further claimed that his personal assistant, Ms. Lucier facilitated the sexual assault of nine of these woman. Mr. Brooks had turned himself in on the charges, but Ms. Lucier will do so next week.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Mr. Brooks engaged in this conduct from a period between March of 2005 through April of 2008. The women, as young as 18 and as old as 30, went voluntarily to Mr. Brook's apartment believing they were auditioning for an acting role. Prosecutors claim that Mr. Brooks flew many of these women into New York from as far as Washington State and Florida after they learned of the potential acting gigs on Craigslist. Once Mr. Brooks got the women into his apartment, however, they quickly learned there was no role to be had.

The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Brooks on:

Rape in the First Degree and Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree - punishable by up to 25 years in prison.

Attempted Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree - punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

Rape in the Second Degree, Criminal Sexual Act in the Second Degree and Sexual Abuse in the First Degree - punishable by up to 7 years in prison.

Rape in the Third Degree, Attempted Criminal Sexual Act in the Second Degree, Criminal Sexual Act in the Third Degree, Attempted Sexual Abuse in the First Degree and Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree - punishable by up to 4 years in prison.

Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree, Forcible Touching, and Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree - punishable by up to one year in jail.

The Grand Jury indicted Ms. Lucier on:

Criminal Facilitation in the Fourth Degree - punishable by up to one year jail.

It is never easy to get inside the head of a prosecutor, but looking at the culpability of both Mr. Brooks and Ms. Lucier as well as the disparity in the potential punishment, it is conceivable that Ms. Lucier may not remain a co-defendant of Mr. Brooks for long. Clearly, Mr. Brooks, not Ms. Lucier, is the main target of the indictment and Ms. Lucier may be able to use that fact to her advantage. Regardless of how the case plays out, each of these individuals need skilled, experienced and savvy criminal defense counsel to put forth their best and most compelling defense as soon as possible.

The criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have learned that Joseph Brooks, a Oscar winning songwriter and director, has been arrested and charged with rape and related crimes. According to law enforcement, it is alleged that at least four women were tricked into going to Mr. Brook's home where they claimed he engaged in some form of sexual acts with them. Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau has scheduled a press conference for today. Check back for updates and an analysis of the facts alleged and crimes charged.

*** UPDATE ***

Throughout New York City from Manhattan to Brooklyn and from Queens to the Bronx, criminal defense attorneys and lawyers encounter a variety of crimes. A set of crimes that your criminal defense lawyer should be familiar with, even though the offenses do not regularly cross the path of a judge or prosecutor, are the crimes related to gambling (Article 225 of the Penal Law). Specifically, these offenses include the felonies and misdemeanors of Promoting Gambling, Possession of Gambling Records and Possession of a Gambling Device. The NY criminal defense attorneys and former Assistant District Attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP firmly believe that just because a prosecutor or judge may not deal with these crimes regularly does not mean that you should be unfamiliar with the law as well. Although not a substitute for a first hand reading and consultation on these crimes, this entry will deal with Promoting Gambling so our readers can develop a basic understanding of this offense.

New York Penal Law 225.05 - Promoting Gambling in the Second Degree

A person is guilty of Promoting Gambling in the Second Degree when he knowingly advances or profits from unlawful gambling activity. Promoting Gambling in the Second Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

New York Penal Law 225.10 - Promoting Gambling in the First Degree

A person is guilty of Promoting Gambling in the First Degree when he knowingly advances or profits from unlawful gambling activity by:

(1) Engaging in bookmaking to the extent that he receives or accepts in any one day more than five bets totaling more than five thousand dollars; or (2) Receiving, in connection with a lottery or policy scheme or enterprise, (a) money or written records from a person other than a player whose chances or plays are represented by such money or records, or (b) more than five hundred dollars in any one day of money played in such scheme or enterprise.

Promoting Gambling in the First Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in state prison.

Be forewarned...the following is a list of terms and definitions applicable to the statutes addressed above. While an understanding of these terms are essential to have a working knowledge of gambling crimes - that doesn't make them easier to read. Please note, however, that the second entry in this series will deal with cases and legal decisions further defining these crimes. So...here we go:

Continue reading " Promoting Gambling and Related Charges in NY: Penal Law 225.05 & 225.10 " »

NY criminal defense lawyers and attorneys who handle Assault cases in New York City should take notice. In People v. Sergio Garcia, 2009NY017018, a Manhattan Criminal Court Judge recently upheld the facial sufficiency of a complaint alleging Assault in the Third Degree, pursuant to Penal Law 120.00(1), where the defendant "punched [an officer] in the chest, thereby causing [that officer] to appear to lose his breath momentarily."

According to Penal Law 120.00(1), a person is guilty of Assault in the Third Degree when with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person. Additionally, physical injury requires impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

In finding the complaint against the defendant sufficient, the court stated that:

"Causing someone to be unable to breath, albeit momentarily, clearly supports an impairment of a person's physical condition, i.e. - breathing, which in the case at bar is directly attributable to the defendant's alleged actions. In the medical field (and as every First Class Boy Scout is trained) it is well settled that among the three most exigent medical "hurry cases" for first aid purposes are 1) heart attack, 2) severe bleeding and 3) impairment of breathing. Such conditions are considered to be potentially life threatening as they relate to fundamental systems necessary to the continuation of bodily function. The even momentary compromise of any such function, is of great concern to the overall integrity of the human body. Such compromise therefore clearly fits within the meaning of the statue."

It is important to note that although this case extends the definition of "impairment of physical condition," it is not a case that is controlling on other courts in Manhattan or other jurisdictions such as Brooklyn or the Bronx. In other words, this decision is not an appellate decision that binds lower courts in any New York City court. Nonetheless, it is an important decision that at a minimum sets forth the idea that one must not suffer a broken nose, bloody lip or black eye to be the victim of Assault in the Third Degree under the law in New York. Clearly, the bar dictating injury may be much lower.

Because courts can view facts and the law differently even within the same building, it is imperative to be represented by experienced criminal defense attorneys who, like the former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP, are able to assess the facts before them, develop a plan of attack and implement a strong and viable criminal defense.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

Jack Chang, a tax preparer who currently is charged in Manhattan with Grand Larceny for his alleged tax fraud scheme, was arrested for threatening the life of Gilda Mariani, the Assistant District Attorney who is handling his case and who is also the top prosecutor in the Tax Crime and Money Laundering Unit. According to at least one report, Mr. Chang had sent letters to the prosecutor depicting a tombstone and stated that he had a 9mm handgun and that he was insane. Moreover, he is alleged to have said that he would shoot the prosecutor once for each year he served in prison.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, a search warrant at the defendant's house revealed a computer printout of Assistant District Attorney's Mariani's biography, as well as another threatening letter directed towards her. The letter stated, in pertinent part, “You will be captured and before you are sent to hell you will taste hell on earth.”

Mr. Chang, who was previously convicted of Grand Larceny in the 1990s, now faces not only the new Grand Larceny and Scheme to Defraud indictment, but he faces additional charges of Coercion in the First Degree, Placing a False Bomb or Hazardous Substance in the Second Degree, Stalking and Aggravated Harassment. Although Stalking and Aggravated Harassment are misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail, Coercion is a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in prison and Placing a False Bomb is an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in prison.

Because of the nature of the threats, it is likely that both the District Attorney's Office and the courts will take a hard line in the event the defendant is convicted of these crimes. Moreover, the newest arrest can potentially run consecutive to the defendant's recent arrest for Grand Larceny.

If it is not overwhelmingly clear, Mr. Chang's alleged actions are clearly the worst way one could challenge the prosecution or fight for one's rights. As a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office I can assert without any hesitation that threatening a witness, victim, judge or prosecutor is rightfully viewed by law enforcement as one of the most heinous crimes. Nothing good can come of these type of threats.

If you are being investigated or you have been arrested or indicted, the absolute best way to resolve a case is to retain experienced criminal counsel. A criminal defense attorney who is versed and skilled in criminal law will advocate for your rights and hold the prosecution to their burden without compromising any ethical standard or your integrity. Whether you are victorious in the defense of your freedom and liberty will require you to work alongside your criminal defense attorney and allow him or her to zealously defend you.

Just yesterday I blogged about a Grand Larceny involving seventeen tons of batteries in Queens. While that may have been a first, again in my years as a prosecutor and New York City criminal defense attorney, I have again come across another unique Grand Larceny crime. According to the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office, Thomas Parkin has been indicted by a Grand Jury on a 47 count indictment. He is charged with Grand Larceny in the First Degree, Forgery, Criminal Impersonation and other crimes for an alleged scheme where he dressed up as his deceased 77 year old mother to steal a Park Slope townhouse, social security benefits, and social service payments. Mhilton Rimolo is also charged in the indictment as well for his assistance in allegedly perpetrating the crimes.

As much as I would like to put this incident into my own words, I have attached the press release for my readers' review. The press release indicates as follows:

"In the 1990s, Irene Prusik (the defendant's mother) deeded her home, 492 6th Avenue, Park Slope, to her son, Thomas Parkin. At the time, Prusik, Parkin and Prusik’s other son lived in the building. Parkin was unable to maintain ownership, and in January 2003, the building was sold at foreclosure auction.

However, according to the indictment, after Prusik died, in September 2003, the two defendants began filing lawsuits against the new owner, Samir Chopra, in the now deceased Prusik’s name, alleging real estate fraud. They claimed that the deed Chopra had bought at auction was invalid and had actually been forged by Parkin, in the 1990s. The real owner, they claimed, was Irene Prusik.

The defendants received Prusik’s Social Security benefits every month for six years, totaling approximately $52,000, according to the indictment. They are also charged with receiving $65,000 in rental assistance from the city Human Resource Agency, claiming the deceased Irene Prusik was Parkin’s landlord and that he and his brother were unable to pay the rent because of a disability. Rimolo was listed as the property manager.

To initiate the crime, Parkin and Rimolo doctored Prusik’s death certificate, providing a false Social Security Number and date of birth, which made it appear as though she were still alive, according to the indictment. In order to perpetuate the ruse, the defendants went as far as to dress Parkin up as his deceased mother, and visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to renew her driver’s license, where, incidentally, they were captured on surveillance video.

In June 2008, believing Prusik was alive, Chopra came to the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office to report that he believed Parkin and Prusik had filed false affidavits, in the course of more than five years of lawsuits against him and various bankruptcy filings, to prevent him from evicting them for failure to pay rent for six years.

Coincidentally, unaware prosecutors had already begun an investigation into his actions, Parkin walked into the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office in March of this year, to report to the new Real Estate Fraud Unit that he and his mother were victims. He claimed his mother was the rightful owner of the property and that the new owner had been using illegal forms of coercion and filing false documents in court filings against them, according to the indictment. Prosecutors also met with Rimolo, who identified himself as Prusik’s nephew.

To the investigators’ surprise, Rimolo and Parkin agreed to arrange a meeting with Prusik at the home on 6th Avenue. When prosecutors and detective investigators arrived, they found Parkin dressed as his 77-year-old mother, wearing a red cardigan, lipstick, manicured nails and breathing through an Oxygen tank."

If convicted of the top charge of Grand Larceny in the First Degree, the defendants face up to 25 years in state prison.

As a former Manhattan prosecutor and as an experienced NY criminal defense attorney who has handled Grand Larceny crimes in New York City ranging from the thousands to millions of dollars, I have to admit that the arrest of Bruce Lesniewski, Darrin Pfaff and Kimberly Edwards for Grand Larceny is a "new" one. According to the Queens County District Attorneys Office, these three individuals are alleged not to have stolen jewels or money, but eight forklifts and seventeen tons of batteries from a warehouse in Queens where they worked as sub-contractors for the MTA. Regardless of what they are accused of stealing, however, the crime of Grand Larceny is still the same.

According to District Attorney Brown:

“The defendants are accused of trying to make a fast buck by stealing tens of thousands of dollars worth of MTA equipment and selling it for a fraction of its value to a scrap dealer. By these arrests we have sent a clear message that in these challenging economic times, the MTA and the riding public can ill afford such waste and thievery and have underscored the fact that those who steal will be held accountable for their actions.”

The most serious offenses that the defendants are charged with, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree and Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, carry a potential maximum sentence of four years and seven years in state prison.

If you or a family member is accused of any crime, it is imperative to retain an experienced and skilled criminal defense attorney to protect your rights, freedom and integrity. Day or night, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP are ready to work with you and do just that.

Thirty New York state employees from Albany to New York City have been arrested and charged with unemployment fraud after they allegedly claimed unemployment benefits while actually working for the state. According to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the thirty defendants are charged with some variation of the crimes of Grand Larceny in the Third and Fourth Degrees, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, and Petit Larceny. As a former Manhattan prosecutor and a New York white collar criminal defense attorney at Crotty Saland, LLP, I can confidently say that the Attorney General’s Office is going to send a loud and clear message to the public that unemployment fraud will not be tolerated at any level.

According to Attorney General Cuomo:

“New York’s unemployment insurance fund was created to help hard-working individuals who find themselves out of a job get back on their feet. In this economic climate, the fund is more important than ever, and we cannot allow it to be depleted through fraud, waste and abuse. Individuals who attempt to undermine the safety net we provide for New Yorkers will be held accountable.”

To qualify for unemployment insurance benefits in New York State, one must weekly certify by phone or the internet that one has not worked for more than four days a week or, in the alternative, earned more than $405 a week.

It is alleged that Maureen McGovern, 70, of Greenwich Street, New York, NY, Randy Destin, 45, of Pacific Street, Brooklyn, NY Kimberly Abrams, 42, of Watson Avenue, Bronx, NY, Ronald Antoine, 52, of Cruger Avenue, Bronx, NY, William Gee, 45, of 151st Street, Bronx, NY, Ani Leon-Marquez, 42, of 169th Street, Bronx, NY, Gail Miller, 32, of Elsmere Place, Bronx, NY, Phillip Lee, 24, of Channingway Court East, Columbus, OH, Nestloye Elliot, 50, of Bascolm Ave, Jamaica, NY, Martha Ulloa, 34, of 88th Street, Woodhaven, NY, Gaylord Beltran, 27, of Forest Avenue, Staten Island, NY, Aliesohn Reid, 27, of Caton Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, Renee Bridgeman, 36, of Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, NY, Kira S. Young, 27, of Albany, NY, Jamie Viola, 31, of Latham, NY, Jean Davis, 53, of Albany, NY, Greg Askilden, 53, of Palenville, NY, Tracy Barber, 26, of Rome, NY, Wayne Earing, 36, of Rensselaer, NY, Deborah Girgenti, 55, of Rensselaer, NY, Charles McMillan, 53, of Hartwick, NY, Cesar Ferarras, Jr., 35, of Poughkeepsie, NY, Joel Babcock, 33, of Stony Point, NY, Dawn Chase, 49, of Peekskill, NY, Steve Lawrence, 46, of Mount Vernon, NY, Carmen Alvarez, 38, of Islandia, NY Aida Licata, 48, of Center Moriches, NY, Donna Ryall, 51, of Deer Park, NY and Jimmy Rodriguez, 48, of Williston Park, NY, all took part in this scheme.

If convicted, Grand Larceny in the Third and Fourth Degrees carry a maximum sentence of seven and four years in state prison respectively. Falsifying Business Records carries a sentence of up to four years in state prison while Petit Larceny carries a maximum sentence of up to one year in county jail.

If you or a loved one is accused of a white collar or violent crime, the criminal defense lawyers and former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP are ready to put forth your best defense to maintain your integrity and freedom.

For further information on white collar crimes and other legal matters, please search and review our criminal law blog.

With the recent media attention over the gun possession charge against Plaxico Burress (he is back in Manhattan criminal court this coming week, but the matter will be adjourned until September because there is no deal in place), New York criminal defense attorneys, such as the former Manhattan prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland, LLP, are keeping an eye on how the charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon resolves itself in this case. In fact, Jeremy Saland, one of the founding partners who served for seven years under Robert Morgenthau, has been immersed in the case since its inception as a legal analyst on gun crimes as it relates to Mr. Burress for CNNSI.Com, the New Jesey Star-Ledger, and the AM NY. While Crotty Saland, LLP has been extremely successful in representing individuals charged with carrying a loaded firearm, the best defense is knowing the law in New York State so that you do not put yourself in a situation where you may violate the law. Therefore, the subject of this entry is going to deal with certain legal presumptions that apply to gun possession that are found in the New York Penal Code.

Pursuant to Penal Law 265.15 there are certain legal presumptions that apply to guns in connection with one's intent to use that firearm unlawfully as well as defacement of the firearm. While this entry will not deal with every presumption, I will address some of the more common ones as follows:

Continue reading " NY Criminal Defense and Presumptions: Criminal Possession of a Weapon - Guns, Pistols and Firearms " »

It appears that Plaxico Burress has not reached a disposition with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office in connection with the his gun possession arrest and charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon. The matter is being adjourned until September when Burress returns to 100 Centre Street on Monday. If convicted, Burress would face a minimum of 3.5 years in state prison and a maximum of 15 years. However, it is clear that the parties are working on a deal that would avoid any sentence similar to that.

The former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP know that Criminal Possession of a Weapon as it relates to guns and other firearms is a very serious offense. Fortunately, our clients have benefited from our experience in law enforcement and as criminal defense attorneys. If you are charged with an offense related to possession of a weapon it is critical to retain criminal counsel that will not only fight to protect your rights and freedom, but your integrity and livelihood.

For further reading:

Gun Possession and Weapon Possession Legal Blog

You have been issued a Desk Appearance Ticket or DAT in New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Staten Island) for Assault, Harassment, Petit Larceny Shoplifting, Drug Possession or any other misdemeanor crime. You make a bad mistake worse by not consulting with a NY criminal defense attorney and compound that mistake yet again by missing your court date. Maybe you thought it was no big deal or you merely forgot, but now you need to rectify the situation ASAP. You get on the phone immediately with experienced criminal defense attorneys and ask him or her the following questions: (1) Was a warrant ordered and (2) can I face any additional charges?

In the event that you missed a return date to court for a NY Desk Appearance Ticket it is very likely that a bench warrant has been issued for your immediate arrest. What that may mean to you is that if you are driving somewhere in New York and you are pulled over for something as small as failure to use your signal when changing lanes, the police may run your information, find the warrant and arrest you. There is even a warrant squad that searches for individuals who have bench warrants or who fail to comply with a condition placed on a sentence.

Although it is used very infrequently, the New York State Penal Law has an additional crime that can be charged against an individual who fails to come to court on a date required by the Desk Appearance Ticket. Pursuant to Penal Law Section 215.58, it is a violation if a person is served with a Desk Appearance Ticket, he or she fails to come to court on the date required and does not come back to court within thirty days of this date. In other words, if you receive a Desk Appearance Ticket and merely forget to come to court for thirty days from the date you were supposed to, you can be charged with this offense. This statute is similar to Bail Jumping, but applies to Desk Appearance Tickets and is less serious.

The simple way to avoid a bench warrant or a new charge is to consult with criminal defense attorneys who are familiar the court process, the crimes, and have prior experience as prosecutors. Moreover, you can keep on top of the law by reviewing the blog and up to date information at NYDeskAppearanceTicket.Com and NewYorkDAT.Com.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

A New York City man, John Zaubler, was arraigned today for the crime of Making a Terroristic Threat (New York Penal Law Section 490.20). A "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison, the charge relates to alleged threats made by Mr. Zaubler to "blow up" President Barack Obama and Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor. According to a prosecutor, Mr. Zaubler stated "I'm going to kill Judge Sotomayor by blowing her up. I'm going to blow her up. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it because my girlfriend is not going to federal prison."

Although Mr. Zaubler is currently at Bellevue Medical Center in Manhattan, New York County Criminal Court Judge James Gibbons arraigned him on live video from 100 Centre Street. According to media reports, it appears that Judge Gibbons adjourned the case for the defendant to receive a psychiatric analysis. This examination is often what is referred to as a "730" examination where the prosecutors and defense attorney try to ascertain whether the defendant is fit to proceed and is capable of understanding the situation he or she faces.

New York Penal Law Section 490.20 states that a person is guilty of Making a Terroristic Threat when with intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a unit of government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a unit of government by murder, assassination or kidnapping, he or she threatens to commit or cause to be committed a specified offense and thereby causes a reasonable expectation or fear of the imminent commission of such offense.

It is important to note that pursuant to subsection two (2) of this statute, the law provides that it is no defense to prosecution under this statute that the defendant did not have the intent or capability of committing this offense or that the threat was not made to a person who was a subject of the threat. In other words, even if Mr. Zaubler was completely incapable of following through with the threat and lacked the true intent to do so, he still may be charged and convicted for this crime.

The criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP know how serious this charge is. As a former Manhattan prosecutor who, along with my partner, served for a combined thirteen years under Robert Morgenthau, I can tell you that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is taking this matter very seriously because of the people it involves. Not only is any threat of this nature dangerous in the eyes of law enforcement, but according to media reports, Mr. Zaubler was previously convicted of Harassment and Disorderly conduct for threatening a man. In that case, it was alleged that Mr. Zabler left messages stating that the now deceased senator Patrick Moynihan was sending a Syrian agent who would kill the man unless he apologized to his Muslim friend.

You have just been arrested for Criminal Possession of a Weapon for possessing a loaded firearm, gun, rifle or revolver. You tell your NY criminal defense attorney that the handgun was not loaded. After all, you had the ammunition locked away in the same carrying case as the gun while checking it at JFK or Laguardia Airports, but the bullets were not physically in it. In a different scenario, you explain to your criminal defense lawyer that your handgun was in a holster and empty while the bullets where in a pouch in your other pocket. How is it, you ask, that you are being charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in New York if the ammunition was not actually inside the gun?

The answer to this question is a fairly simple one. Pursuant to Penal Law Section 265.00(15), "Loaded Firearm" is defined under the NY Penal Law as "any firearm loaded with ammunition or any firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge the firearm." See People v. Walston
147 Misc.2d 679 (Kings County 1990) (Possession of shotgun shell where the shotgun was present was sufficient to find the shotgun loaded.)

While the definition and law listed above may be a shock to you, the criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have successfully represented and avoided criminal records for numerous individuals who possessed "loaded" firearms where they wrongfully believed they were "unloaded." This mistake, even with a valid permit from another jurisdiction, is potentially devastating for anyone. The firearm you were about to drive out of the state or properly check at the airport can land you behind bars for a minimum of 3.5 years and a maximum of 15 years. Before making this life altering gaffe, you owe it to yourself to become educated on the gun laws in New York and to contact experienced criminal defense attorneys to help you navigate the murky waters of New York State's gun laws.

The best and top criminal defense attorneys in NY fight tenaciously for their clients. Whether that fight is a legal brawl or it rears its head in a more creative way, the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP know how to ascertain the best path to a successful criminal defense. In fact, a client charged with Assault in the Third Degree, PL 120.00, just benefited from our experience.

Briefly, our client was charged with Assault in the Third Degree after he allegedly broke the complainant's nose with his fists. At arraignment, the prosecution asked for bail in the multiple thousands of dollars, but we convinced the judge to release or "ROR" our client. Even before our client saw the judge for the first time, we locked a witness (the complainant's own friend) into his statement that the complainant was drunk and threw a glass mug at the defendant. Further investigation revealed the complainant's aggressive past as well as the complainant's serious mental health problems. Our findings directly went to not only the complainant's credibility, but violent nature. Although the defendant was about four inches taller and fifty pounds heavier than the complainant and there was no preserved evidence of the defendant's injuries from the complainant, our investigation helped convince the prosecutor that the complainant may have been the initial aggressor and the defendant acted in self defense. As a result, despite breaking the complainant's nose and admitting to striking the complainant, our client accepted a disposition where ultimately an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal will prevent him from having (rightfully) any criminal record. Baring an outright dismissal, this ultimate dismissal after the adjournment term is a tremendous result and vindication for our client that he was not a guilty party. As a young man who worked at a top 10 international law firm, our client was not only saved from the embarrassment of the allegations and a criminal record, but he walked away with his career, livelihood and future secure.

If you are accused of a crime or under investigation for any offense, contact the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP.

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office just released more information regarding the fraud indictment involving $600,000 in theft. The defendants, M.A. Angeliades, Inc., Merkourios Angeliades, Dimitri Malakidis and Irena Angeliades were indicted on the charges of Grand Larceny, Offering a False Instrument for Filing, Falsifying Business Records, Bribing a Witness, Bribing a Labor Official and Attempted Tampering with Physical Evidence. Additionally, three employees from Local 731, Anthony Graham, Harold Johnson and Eduardo Visone, were each indicted for Falsifying Business Records, Bribing a Labor Official and Bribing a Witness. It is alleged that their conduct resulted stemmed from 2005 through 2007.

It is alleged that M.A. Angeliades, Inc., a general contracting firm, had four separate contracts with New York City and the MTA. Specifically, M.A. Angeliades, Inc. was to provide the labor to rehabilitate eleven subway stations. In doing so, the company was required to pay the prevailing wages for these jobs. Instead, it is alleged that the above named individuals in some capacity appropriated the wages to themselves and instead of the employees. This was hidden from the MTA through many means including creating false payroll reports.

The defendants face up to one year on the misdemeanor charge of Attempted Tampering with Physical Evidence, four years on the Falsifying Business Records and Offering a False Instrument for Filing, up to seven years on the charge of Bribing a Witness and Bribing an Official, and up to fifteen years on the Grand Larceny offense.

Regardless of the specific charges each of these individuals face, they need to act quickly and implement their defense strategy. As a former Manhattan prosecutor, I can tell you that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office Rackets Bureau consists of top prosecutors who will not wait for a defendant to decide how he or she will proceed. Whatever the charge and allegation, the white collar NY criminal defense attorneys and former prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP know that time cannot be wasted. That is why we are ready to fight to protect your freedom and implement a plan to defend your rights as soon as possible.

The New York white collar criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP have learned that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is set to announce the indictment of the principles and three employees of M.A. Angeliades Inc. for underpaying employees. It is alleged that the underpayment of the employees was in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. The company, a construction firm based out of Queens, was a contractor for NYC that did construction work on and in the subway system.

Obviously, as we regularly do, Crotty Saland, LLP will keep you informed on the charges, penalties and other interesting facts of this white collar criminal matter as we learn more.

CLICK HERE FOR UPDATE

The Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorneys Office announced the indictment today of Crystal Sparkse and its President, Alexander Shamayan, Golden Art Fine Jewelers and its President, Ghassan Maalouf, and Pavillion Jewelers and its President Saeed Azarfar, for Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree and other crimes. It is alleged that each of these stores under reported their sales tax or had a deficiency of approximately $550,000, $125,000 and $350,000 respectively. It is alleged that undercover officers went to some of the stores to purchase jewelry and they were informed that if they paid in cash no sales tax would be charged.

Former Manhattan prosecutors, the white collar criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP have worked on cases involving alleged tax and Grand Larceny crimes as they relate to New York State taxing authorities. In fact in one such case, our client received no jail and was able to civilly litigate whether he owed approximately 3.2 million dollars out of an estimated 5 million dollars prosecutors alleged he had illegally kept.

While each case requires its own analysis, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP work with all of our client to set a plan in motion to protect our client's freedom, livelihood and integrity.

Whether you are under investigation for a white collar crime or have already been arrested for a weapon crime, it is imperative to retain an experienced New York criminal defense attorney before you talk with law enforcement. It may be that without an admission or statement on your part to the police or FBI, law enforcement has no case against you...that is right...nothing. Whatever the circumstances, whether you voluntarily go to a precinct to talk to the police to “clear the air” or you are already under arrest, you may be waiving your rights and jeopardizing your case. Even more importantly, your fatal mistake may cost you your freedom. Unfortunately for one particular defendant in Nassau County, he learned this lesson the hard way.

In a decision rendered on May 8, 2009, a Nassau County District Court Judge ruled in People v. Alfredo Pena, 2008NA011705, that a defendant’s statements were not the result of a “custodial interrogation” and therefore admissible and not obtained in violation of his rights. This “custodial interrogation” is the key element or principle in New York’s cases involving Miranda and admissions. In the Pena case, the police were investigating the defendant for the crime of Harassment through phone calls. The defendant went to the station voluntarily, waited for about 45 minutes until the detective was available and ultimately made admissions of his involvement. During this entire period of time the defendant was never handcuffed or forced to remain in the precinct. Moreover, no threats or promises were made and the defendant was not arrested. Shortly thereafter, the defendant was read his Miranda warnings, which he voluntarily waived, and he spoke further with the police. Ultimately, as you have probably guessed by now, the police arrested the defendant and the prosecutors indicated that they were going to use all the admissions against the defendant at trial. After motions were made by the defendant’s counsel, a Huntley Hearing (a hearing where a judge determines the admissibility of a defendant’s statement) was ordered and conducted.

More after the jump...

Continue reading " “Miranda Warnings,” Your Right to Remain Silent and Your NY Criminal Defense " »