New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Whether you were arrested or issued a New York Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) for Shoplifting pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 155.25 (Petit Larceny) or 165.40 (Criminal Possession of Stolen Property), the legal standard is the same. Regardless of the crime, police officers in New York City and throughout the state, must have probable cause to arrest you. If not, your criminal defense attorney or lawyer must file a motion for the dismissal and to request a Dunaway hearing (other hearings might be applicable as well). Beyond this basic legal right that you have to prevent unlawful arrests, there are other factors that should be addressed by your criminal defense attorney. The following is a brief analysis of one of such factor.

According to People v. Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309, 310 (1981), the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, has found that in order to sustain a conviction for shoplifting, one's actions must be “wholly inconsistent with the rights of the owner.” Taken further, the Court of Appeals found that “[i]f a customer exercises dominion and control wholly inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner, and other elements of the crime are present, a larceny has occurred.”

Although the above case seems relatively straight forward, there numerous ways to interpret that ruling. For example, what is "wholly inconsistent?" Would placing two sweaters in your large purse be "wholly inconsistent?" What about placing those same sweaters inside your jacket? continuing with the "what if game," what if the store provides bags or carts to carry items before you purchase them and what if they do not? Does this alter whether placing sweaters or even food from a supermarket in your personal bag or jacket is "wholly inconsistent?" If you were still shopping when you were stopped would the case be different then if you walked passed a register, but you had not exited the store?

More analysis after the jump...

Continue reading " New York's "Wholly Inconsistent" Shoplifting Standard: NY Case Law & Applicability to Your Criminal Defense " »

According to a report, Martin Berres, a 62 year old New Yorker, has allegedly ripped off his internet lovers for multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. Arrested yesterday, Mr. Berres is scheduled to return to court November 27th where he faces one count of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class "C" felony, punishable by up to 15 years in state prison.

Mr. Berres allegedly met two women on JDate, a Jewish internet dating website. One of those women was allegedly victimized by Mr.Berres earlier this month when her 7-carat diamond necklace was stolen. The police believe Mr. Berres not only stole that necklace from her apartment, but sold the $50,000 piece of jewelry for $11,000. Additionally, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office may be investigating whether Mr. Berres perpetrated the crimes of Identity Theft, Forgery, Falsifying Business Records and Grand Larceny when a girlfriend's bank account and credit card was emptied and used to the tune of $360,000. Earlier this year, according to a report, Mr. Berres stole a girlfriend's identification and withdrew $10,000 from her Chase bank account.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a white collar criminal defense firm located in New York City. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, one of whom was one an original member of the Identity Theft Unit upon its creation by Robert Morgenthau, Crotty Saland, LLP represents clients throughout the New York City area.

While you shouldn't need a NY criminal defense attorney to tell you it is a bad idea to get behind the wheel of a vehicle in New York State (or any state for that matter) after having consumed alcohol, Crotty Saland, LLP has provided our readers with a tool that can assist them in understanding how much alcohol one must consume before one is legally intoxicated. In New York, that legal level to sustain a conviction for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI /DUI) is .08. However, even if one's BAC is not recorded, courts can still find one guilty under the "Common Law" DWI / DUI statute that is satisfied through observations of drunkenness on the part of a police officer.

The tool linked on our DWI / DUI web page, should not be used as a means to guide you as you are drinking to ascertain whether you are "ok" to drive. There are too many factors that need to be taken into consideration and in no way will this calculator give you an exact determination of your BAC. Under no circumstance should it be relied on for that purpose. Instead, the calculator is a means to get a general understanding of the relationship between your weight, type of alcohol, amount of alcohol and time of consumption on your BAC.

For more information on the criminal law in New York as it relates to DWI / DUI offenses, read the New York DWI criminal law blog and contact an NY criminal defense attorney.

Crotty Saland, LLP is New York based criminal defense firm representing clients in all criminal matters including DWI / DUI. Former Manhattan prosecutors, the attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP represent clients throughout the New York City region.

The Brooklyn District Attorney's Office has announced that along with the 105 count indictment against Watson Joachin and Ryan Woodard for Criminal Possession of a Weapon and Criminal Sale of a Firearm, the NYPD has taken 56 guns off the streets of New York.

According to to the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office:

"The indictment includes charges for the sale or possession of 46 guns – including 28 semiautomatic pistols, six revolvers, three assault rifles, four sawed-off shotguns, and five rifles – to undercover detectives. On four occasions, detectives purchased a total of 40 guns. A fifth sale was arranged, but instead of carrying it out, officers raided the defendant’s Brooklyn safe house and 2 confiscated six additional guns. Through the investigation, ten additional guns were taken off the streets."

"Investigators believe the guns, worth more than $40,000, were primarily purchased in Florida. Some were brand new, with safety stickers and barrel plugs affixed. Others had been defaced, meaning their serial numbers had been removed."

The defendants are charged with Criminal Sale of a Firearm in the First Degree, Criminal Sale of a Firearm in the Second Degree, Criminal Sale of a Firearm in the Third Degree, Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the First Degree, and Criminal Possession of a Weapon on the Second.

Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the First Degree, pursuant to NY Penal Law 265.04, and Criminal Sale of a Firearm in the First Degree, pursuant to NY Penal Law 265.13, are both "B" felonies punishable by up to 25 years in prison. Criminal Sale of a Firearm in the Second and Degree, pursuant to NY Penal Law 265.12, and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, pursuant to NY Penal Law 265.03, are both "C" felonies punishable by up to 15 years in state prison. Criminal Sale of a Firearm in the Third Degree, pursuant to NY Penal Law 265.11, is a class "D" felony punishable by up to 7 years in state prison.

While I can only speculate as to the scope of the evidence, investigations such as this are often accompanied with "wires," video surveillance, search warrants and other recording devices. These defendants, innocent until proven otherwise, have a long road ahead of them and are charged with crimes that the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office will like vigorously pursue for significant sentences.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a criminal defense firm located in New York, NY. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland, LLP represents clients in criminal matters throughout the metropolitan area.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

Whether you are charged in NY with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law 265.01, for possessing a revolver, firearm, pistol, switchblade, gravity knife or even metal knuckles, under certain circumstance prosecutors can "bump up" or raise the level of your crime from a misdemeanor to a felony. The basis of this "bump up" to Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law 265.02(1), is whether you have any prior criminal convictions.

Pursuant to Penal Law section 265.02(1), a person is guilty of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree if such person commits the crime of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree as defined in subdivision one, two, three or five of section 265.01, and has been previously convicted of any crime. That is right...if you were ever convicted of a misdemeanor Trespass, Petit Larceny for shoplifting, or even Theft of Services for jumping a turnstile and you are now arrested for having a switchblade in your pocket, prosecutors can charge you with a felony. The ramifications are enormous as the misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail and the felony by up to seven years in state prison.

If you have a prior criminal record and you have been arrested for the misdemeanor offense of Criminal Possession of a Weapon the Fourth Degree do not compound a bad situation. Not only may you be charged with a misdemeanor for possessing the alleged weapon even without the intent to use it unlawfully (weapons such as metal knuckles, gravity knives and switchblades are "per se" weapons or automatically considered weapons under NY law regardless of how they are being used), but you may find yourself charged with a felony as well.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York City criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Crotty Saland, LLP represents clients in all criminal matters from weapon crimes to white collar offenses.

The NYS Senate, Assembly and Governor have all agreed. If you perpetrate the misdemeanor crime of DWI / DUI in New York and there is a child in the vehicle who is 15 years old or younger, then the crime will be "bumped up'' to an "E" felony punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in state prison for a first time offender. Prior to this change, one could be charged with misdemeanor VTL 1192.2, VTL 1192.3 and 1192.4 (New York's DWI / DUI statutes) as well as the misdemeanor Endangering the Welfare of a Child in the event one drove drunk with a child in the car (certainly, other charges might be applicable as well). From the NYS Senate press release:

"Under Leandra’s Law, driving impaired or with at least a blood alcohol level of .08 with a child passenger age 15 and under, is a Class E felony – for both first-time and repeat offenders. The offense carries a sentence of one to four years in state prison, a fine of $1000 to $5000, and the issuance of a mandatory ignition interlock device."

"The measure mandates that ignition interlock devices are to be standard sentencing on all DWI-related offenses, mirroring legislation already passed in the Senate earlier this year."

"In the event of serious physical injury or death to a child, Leandra’s Law increases penalties. In instances of injury to a child, the driver would be charged with a Class D felony and face a state prison sentence of one to seven years. If reckless driving is a contributing factor, the charge would be a Class C felony and carry a maximum prison sentence of 15 years."

"If the driver causes the death of a child, the charge would be a Class C felony and carry a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison. If reckless driving is a contributing factor, the driver would be charged with a Class B felony and faces a prison sentence of up to 25 years."

UPDATE: LEANDRA'S LAW - VTL 1192.2a(b) - Further Defined

Whatever the recipe, the dough was a little too sticky. According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office and Robert Morgenthau, a Grand Jury has indicted bagel wholesaler Helmer Toro for Gand Larceny, Offering a False Instrument for Filing and violating the labor law through unemployment insurance tax rate manipulation. Prosecutors allege that Mr. Toro, the owner of H & H Bagels, collected, but failed to pay, $369,318.77 withheld from his bagel business employees. This occurred during a six year period from 2003 through his arrest in 2009.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office:

"The investigation further revealed that during the period of this indictment, [Mr. Toro] filed State and City withholding tax returns under six successive company names. Sporadically, [Mr. Toro] made nominal payments to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance even though [Mr. Toro] knew he was obligated to turn over all withheld tax. Through shell companies, [Mr. Toro] committed unemployment insurance tax rate manipulation by transferring a large segment of his workforce from an existing business to a new business for the purpose of obtaining a lower unemployment insurance tax rate. Although [Mr. Toro] formed a new company, many of the same workers were being employed at the new company and he was able to therefore obtain an advantageous rate for his unemployment insurance payments to the trust fund operated by the New York State Department of Labor."

The first prosecution of unemployment insurance tax rate manipulation under the New York State Unemployment Tax Act (also known as the SUTA dumping statute) since it became effective on January 1, 2006, Mr. Morgenthau stated:

“This case is a wake up call to all employers who fail to fulfill their fiduciary obligation to pay over taxes withheld from their employee’s salaries. It also demonstrates how tax evasion hurts our workers when an employer deliberately fails to contribute the appropriate amount into the unemployment insurance trust fund.”

The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Toro on five counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class C felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison; one count of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a class D felony punishable by up to 7 years in prison; three counts of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree, a class E felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison; and two counts of a violation of Labor Law §581(7)(c)(5) (Unemployment Insurance Tax Rate Manipulation), a class E felony also punishable by up to 4 years in prison.

Whatever the appropriate defense might be in this case, Mr. Toro should implement that defense immediately. The Money Laundering and Tax Crimes Unit, a highly skilled boutique unit of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, is represented by prosecutors and investigators with significant experience in these types of schemes. As is the case for many of these alleged crimes, the longer the matter progresses without ascertaining and implementing one's defense, the more difficult it is to defend them.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a white collar criminal defense firm located in New York. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors who served under Robert Morgenthau, Crotty Saland, LLP has successfully represented clients in alleged frauds involving thefts in the tens of thousands of dollars to alleged tax crimes involving multiple millions of dollars.

According to reports, "Leandra's Law" is coming closer to reality. The New York State Assembly agreed on their version of the bill that will raise Driving While Intoxicated / DWI (1192.2 and 1192.3) to a felony offense in the event that a child under the age of 15 is a passenger in the vehicle. It is not clear if the felony will be applicable on DWI / DUI crimes involving drug use or merely alcohol. Both the New York State Senate and the Assembly have to agree on their respective bills before Governor Patterson signs the bill into law. We will keep our readers informed.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a criminal defense firm founded by former Manhattan prosecutors. Follow our legal updates online at NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com and on Twitter.

Any NY criminal defense attorney experienced in New York criminal law should be able to explain to you that if you are a predicate felon in New York State and charged with a non-controlled substance offense, a second felony conviction will land you in state prison even if your offense is "merely" and "E" Felony. In other words, if you are a predicate felon, as will be explained below, a sentence of state prison is mandatory on felony plea.

Pursuant to New York Penal Law Section 70.06, for one to be deemed a predicate felon or second felony offender, one must have a prior felony conviction in the past ten years. In the event you were incarcerated or on probation, the ten years starts from the completion of your incarceration. This only applies to felonies and not prior misdemeanors. Therefore, while a judge or prosecutor might take the prior misdemeanors into consideration when arranging for a disposition or determining a sentence, from a technical standpoint, the prior misdemeanors will not impact your sentence on a new felony (from a practical standpoint it often does).

An issue that comes up in the realm of the predicate felon statute is whether or not the first felony offense must be a felony in New York State. Instead of New York, what if your conviction was from a state such as Florida, Connecticut or Pennsylvania?

According to New York Penal Law Section 70.06(1)(a)(i): "the [previous felony] conviction must have been in [NY] of a felony, or in any other jurisdiction of an offense for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of one year or a sentence of death was authorized and is authorized in this state irrespective of whether such sentence was imposed."

Put into other terms, merely because a crime is called a felony in Arizona does not meant that the crime would be a felony here. Was a term of imprisonment in excess of one year possible (not necessarily imposed) and are the elements of the crime felonious here? The Arizona conviction on your record may be called Burglary, but the elements of that crime in Arizona and the potential sentence may be similar to a misdemeanor in New York.

Obviously, it is imperative to ascertain whether your prior conviction is a felony in New York State so that you don't end up in prison when you never should have gone in the first place. To put this in perspective, as addressed above with the "E" felony, the lowest of all felonies, if you are not a predicate felon jail is not mandatory. If you are a predicate felon, then a minimum term of incarceration of 1.5 to 3 years in state prison is required and the court must adjudicate you a "Predicate Felon." Certainly, going to prison without answering this question is unacceptable.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Follow Crotty Saland, LLP on the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog or on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

He may have loved the book, theatrical performance or even the movie, but Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau is not a fan of real life Oliver Twists. According to reports, the New York County District Attorney's Office unsealed a 639 count indictment involving the arrests of 15 alleged pickpocket crew members. The defendants, including Arthur Franklin, Jospeh Simms, Vincent Franklin, James Mannix, Kathleen Miller, Carol Dibitetto, Larry Ford, Kandra Lysland, Tina Barboza, Mary Bennett and Yvonne Harris are alleged to have stolen over $600,000 and compromised at least 60 bank accounts. The 639 count indictment includes numerous felonies such as Grand Larceny, Identity Theft, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Conspiracy, Scheme to Defraud, Attempted Grand Larceny, Forgery and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. It is interesting to note that prosecutors did not charge the defendants with Enterprise Corruption. While there could be numerous reasons, it is possible that the crew had no ascertainable structure, but was alleged to be more consistent with a loose knit band of thieves. Regardless, the scheme is purported to have operated for at least one year before the arrests and indictments.

According to the District Attorney's Office, vigilant investigators at Chase Bank reviewed video surveillance of fraudulent transactions and noticed a common theme of women wearing wigs and glasses. Further investigation revealed that Arthur Franklin, Vincent Franklin and Joseph Simms were present either inside or outside the bank when the transactions occurred. Chase Bank put the dots together when they learned that many of the victims of the fraudulent bank transactions were also victims of pickpockets.

More than merely a pickpocketing crew that made a quick buck, some of the defendants are alleged to have worked at a Pennsylvania collections agency where victims' personal information including addresses, social security numbers and dates of birth were harvested and provided to other defendants. With this information, the defendant then conducted their fraudulent transactions. At times, the defendants are alleged to have created fake identifications to appear as if they were in rightful owners of the accounts. All in, the defendants are accused of stealing $600,000 of which $74,000 in cash was recovered in a search warrant along with 200 stolen credit cards in another search warrant.

The defendants have been indicted on various charges, including Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree, Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Identity Theft in the First Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Attempted Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, Attempted Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, Identity Theft in the Second Degree, Attempted Identity Theft in the Second Degree, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree, Forgery in the Second Degree, Petit Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree and Criminal Possession of Marijuana in the Fifth Degree.

Grand Larceny in the Second Degree is a class C felony, which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Identity Theft in the First Degree, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, and Forgery in the Second Degree are class D felonies, which are punishable by up to 7 years in prison. Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, Attempted Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, Identity Theft in the Second Degree, and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree are class E felonies, which are punishable by up to 4 years in prison.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York based criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the metropolitan area. The two principals, Elizabeth Crotty and Jeremy Saland, have extensive experience as both criminal defense attorneys and as former Manhattan prosecutors having served in the Special Prosecutions Bureau and Identity Theft Unit respectively.

The Manhattan District Attorney announced the arrest and indictment earlier today of Michael Batalias, Elisavet Batalias, Vassiliki Stergiou and EMB Contracting Corporation for defrauding employees in the neighborhood of $1 million dollars. The defendants are charged with Grand Larceny in the First Degree and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree. Moreover, Elisavet Batalias was charged with eleven counts of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office:

EMB Contracting Corp is a "general contractor providing labor in the rehabilitation/construction of 30 public schools throughout New York City. As provided by the New York State Labor Law, and under the terms of these contracts, EMB was required to pay all of the employees engaged in working on these contracts the prevailing wage and supplemental benefit rate. The Office of the Inspector General for the SCA began investigating EMB after receiving a number of complaints that the firm was not paying employees the required prevailing wage rate, but rather roughly a third to a half of the rate, and was not making appropriate contributions to the union pension fund."

Prosecutors allege the the contractors were not merely "cooking" the books, but also created a new set of "dummy" records as well. All of this, according to the Manhattan DA, was to hide underpayments. Additionally, EMB falsified payroll reports and completely omitted workers from records while adding those who did not actually work. In fact, when it came time to submit the payment applications, it is alleged that Elisavet Batalia provided sworn affidavits that the prevailing was was paid to employees when it had not. Vicky Stergiou also is alleged to have given cash "off the books" to employees by cashing EMB checks made payable to other people. The alleged fraud perpetrated by the defendants took another step towards criminality when Michael Batalias allegedly staged a accident at a different location after an employee was hurt elsewhere.

While I am certainly not privy to the facts of the case beyond the press release, the defendant's certainly have a difficult road ahead. The police executed a search warrant in 2008 and likely have subpoenaed bank and payroll records. Moreover, it appears that there are numerous employees, ie, witnesses, who could testify as to how they were paid, hours worked and conduct of the EMB. That being said, although it is not an affirmative defense as it is in the context of Falsifying Business Records, did any of the defendants offer the false instrument at the behest of a supervisor and without any personal benefit? Did each individual indicted by the Grand Jury have the intent to perpetrate these crimes? Are there documents supporting each of the defendants' involvements or is the indictment based on the general roles of the defendants at EMB? Whatever the defense may be, the defendants should implement it immediately.

Grand Larceny in the First Degree is a class B felony punishable by up to 8⅓ to 25 years in prison. Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree are class E felonies punishable by up to 1⅓ to 4 years in prison.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a white collar criminal defense firm located in New York City. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland, LLP has successfully represented clients in white collar criminal matters ranging from multiple million dollar Criminal Tax Fraud cases to crimes involving Forged Instruments, Identity Theft and Grand Larceny in the tens of thousands of dollars.

While your "average" white collar crime case may not include the offenses of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 175.35) and Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 175.30), the former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP still believe it is important for our readers to have a grasp on this section of the New York Penal Law. Therefore, the following article will address these crimes.

Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree (NY Penal Law 175.30):

A person is guilty of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, he offers or presents it to a public office or public servant with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office or public servant.

Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the Second Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree (NY Penal Law 175.35):

A person is guilty of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false statement or false information, and with intent to defraud the state or any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit corporation of the state, he offers or presents it to a public office, public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation with the knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded in or otherwise become part of the records of such public office, public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation.

Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in prison.

To shed further light on these offenses, William Donnino, the commentator in the annotated code has stated:

"The basic crime of 'offering a false instrument for filing' is directed at the person who, knowing that a 'written instrument' [defined in § 175.00(3)] has false recitals, 'offers or presents' the instrument to a 'public office' or 'public servant' [defined in § 10.00(15)] with the 'knowledge or belief' that it will become part of the records of that public office or servant [§ 175.30]."

"Notably, the crime is limited to written instruments which contain false recitals as opposed to forged instruments; the instrument need only be offered or presented, not accepted or received, by the public office or servant; and the defendant need only have a subjective belief, not actual knowledge, that the instrument will become part of the records of the public office or servant."

Donnino further states that:

"The crime of offering a false instrument for filing is divided into two degrees.The basic crime is offering a false instrument in the second degree [§ 175.30] and that crime is predicated on 'knowing' that the written instrument offered for filing contains a false statement or false information. If that basic crime is also committed 'with an intent to defraud' the State or any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit corporation of the State, then the defendant is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree [§ 175.35]. (The first-degree statute was amended in 1998 to overrule People v. Miller, 1987, 70 N.Y.2d 903, 524 N.Y.S.2d 386, 519 N.E.2d 297 by making the crime applicable to filings with a public authority or public benefit corporation. L. 1998, c. 99.)"

"By that two-degree structure, the drafters sought to distinguish the level of culpability between, for example, the person who, out of vanity, knowingly falsifies his or her age in an application for a license in which the age of the applicant is not significant, and one who corruptly defrauds the State out of huge sums through false documents submitted in connection with a building contract. See Staff Notes of the Commission on Revision of the Penal Law. Proposed New York Penal Law. McKinney's Spec. Pamph. (1964), p. 366."

It is worth noting that these offenses are very similar to the white collar crimes of Tampering with Public Records (note the same "intent to defraud" language that raises the level of the offense) and Falsifying Business Records.

If you or a loved one are charged with or are being investigated for any white collar crime contact Crotty Saland, LLP to start taking the steps to protecting your liberty, livelihood and good name.

Whether you have been issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT or D.A.T.) in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens or the Bronx, the process is the same when you go to court the first time. Generally, it is best to have retained an experienced criminal defense attorney prior to going to court. Why? Upon arriving in court without an attorney, you will bring a copy of your desk appearance ticket to the front of the courtroom and place it in a bin or give it to a court officer. After dropping off your desk appearance ticket, you will wait until the legal aid attorney or 18-b assigned counsel (both "public defenders") call out your name. This will be the first time you will have the opportunity to discuss anything with your lawyer. That is right. You will not have a chance to talk to your attorney until you are already in the courtroom....you and the other five, fifteen or thirty other defendants. In fact, there could be well over one hundred people just like you waiting to see the judge.

After he or she calls your name, you will have a brief period of time to discuss your case with the attorney. Sometime after that (it could be 30 minutes or it could be a few hours), you and your assigned attorney will go before the judge. At that time, your assigned attorney will enter a plea of "not guilty" on your behalf. After that, depending on the nature of the case, the prosecution may make you an offer. For example, if you are accused of shoplifting and charged with Petit Larceny (NY Penal Law 155.25) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (NY Penal Law 165.40) in Manhattan, the prosecutor will likely offer you the violation of Disorderly Conduct (NY Penal Law 240.20). While a plea to this offense will not give you a criminal record and is "sealed," the arrest and plea may show up on a background check years down the road. Obviously, the ramifications to you may be enormous. This is not to scare you, but a realistic outcome that may not be explored in detail at your arraignment with your assigned counsel. While a plea such as this may "end" your case, it may not be in your best interest and cause future distress and real life problems.

If you take a plea at this time, your case will be over for all intents and purposes. However, depending on the disposition of a case, you may have to sign up for community service or a program. Moreover, there may be a fine or fee you must pay. If you are responsible for these fees or community service you will have to return on a future date to show proof.

Continue reading " New York Desk Appearance Tickets (DAT): What to Expect When You Go to Court The First Time & Should You Retain a NYC Criminal Defense Attorney / Lawyer? " »

To the untrained eye, Bribery, pursuant to New York Penal Law Sections 200.00, 200.03 and 200.4 and Rewarding Official Misconduct, pursuant to New York Penal Law Sections 220.20 and 220.22 (all Article 200 crimes), involve very similar elements. In fact, those individuals who are not NY criminal defense attorneys or lawyers may not fully grasp the distinction between these offenses. That being said, William Donnino stated it best when he wrote:

"[B]ribery...[is] concerned with what a public servant 'will' do. The crime of [R]ewarding...[O]fficial [M]isconduct [is] directed at rewards to public servants for having previously violated their duty as a public servant."

In other words, and in general terms, Bribery occurs when a payment (for example) is made to another person to alter that person's behavior while Rewarding Official Misconduct would occur where the payment is made after such person's behavior or action has already taken place.

Now, to the New York Penal Law:

§ 200.20 Rewarding Official Misconduct in the Second Degree

A person is guilty of Rewarding Official Misconduct in the Second Degree when he knowingly confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a public servant for having violated his duty as a public servant.

Rewarding Official Misconduct in the Second Degree is a class E felony punishable by up to 4 years in state prison.

§ 200.22 Rewarding Official Misconduct in the First Degree

A person is guilty of Rewarding Official Misconduct in the First Degree when he knowingly confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a public servant for having violated his duty as a public servant in the investigation, arrest, detention, prosecution, or incarceration of any person for the commission or alleged commission of a class A felony defined in article two hundred twenty of the penal law or the attempt to commit any such class A felony.

Rewarding Official Misconduct in the First Degree is a class C felony punishable by up to 15 years in state prison.

Crotty Saland, LLP, is a New York City based criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Crotty Saland,LLP represents clients in white collar criminal cases during the investigative and post-arrest stages.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.