New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

The pertinent part of New York Penal Law sections 170.05 & 170.10, Forgery in the Third and Second Degree, plainly states that one is guilty of Forgery when with intent to defraud, deceive or injure another, a person falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument.

Depending on what a person forges, the level or degree of the offense may be elevated from a misdemeanor to a "D" or even a "C" felony. For example, if the item forged is deed, will or instrument created by the government, the crime can go from an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail (Rikers) to a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison. Moreover, if one counterfeits United States currency, the crime can be bumped up further to a "C" felony pursuant to New York Penal Law 170.15 and is punishable by up to 15 years prison. Well, what about knock off handbags, clothing or other items? Assuming the buyer is not knowingly buying a fake handbag (so, forget the shoppers seeking out "deals" on Canal Street) and the person selling the handbag or other property is presenting it as the authentic product with the intent to defraud the buyer, can the seller be charged with Forgery for making the knockoff handbag or Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument for possessing the same?

The answer is clear. These crimes would not be applicable. According to a Manhattan Criminal Court Judge in People v. Vu, 161 Misc.2d 692 (NY Cty Crim. Ct. 1994):

"Although it may not be impossible to squeeze the counterfeit handbag...into this definition by means of enterprising, if tortuous, parsing, it seems clear that these statutes were never intended to cover activity so far afield from the counterfeiting of written instruments, such as contracts and wills, and so manifestly within the ambit of those frauds which the trademark counterfeiting statutes (Penal Law 165.70 et seq.) were later enacted to encompass. However broad the language of the clause concluding subdivision one of section 170.10 of the Penal Law, the terms and examples which precede it logically limit its sense and scope to prohibit only the alteration of documents of like type under the principle of ejusdem generis (of the same kind)."

Although not a Court of Appeals (NYS highest court) holding and decision, it is safe to say that items beyond the scope of a "written instrument" do not fall within the territory of Forgery. Certainly, other crimes may be applicable that are as serious or more significant, but Forgery will not be established unless the elements and language of the statute is satisfied. If the law permitted prosecutors to squeeze fake handbags into this definition (it was obviously tried!), who knows what new "forgeries" would be prosecuted in the future.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York based criminal defense firm. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland, LLP represents clients throughout the New York City region.

Tensy May Smith, a letter carrier for the postal service who has worked in the town of Pound Ridge (Westchester County), was arrested earlier today in a joint investigation by the Pound Ridge Police Department and the United States Postal Inspection Service.

After receiving numerous complaints of people losing debit cards, gift cards and other items of value, law enforcement set up a sting and executed a search warrant Ms. Smith's home. According to reports, the police allegedly recovered approximately $70,000 worth of stolen property belonging to residents along Ms. Smith's delivery route. Moreover, law enforcement caught Ms. Smith "red handed," when she allegedly was found trying to steal from the mail under the watchful eye of Postal Inspectors and local police.

As a result of the arrest and search warrant, Ms. Smith is charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 155.40). Grand Larceny in the Second Degree involves the theft of property that exceeds $50,000 in value, but is $1 Million or less. If convicted, Ms. Smith faces up to 5 to 15 years in state prison. Moreover, prosecutors will likely seek some amount of restitution of other thefts can be proved.

Crotty Saland LLP is a white collar criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City and the surrounding suburbs. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland LLP is located in downtown Manhattan near the state and federal courts.

A die-hard Mets fan and employee at old Shea stadium, Gerald Tacopino, pleaded guilty today in Queens Criminal Court for the misdemeanor crime of Petit Larceny. When sentenced, Mr. Tacopino was fined $500 and paid just over $800 in restitution. Mr. Tacopino was previously arrested after a search warrant at his residence revealed Mr. Tacopino had stolen 23 Mets security caps, three Mets security jackets, five Mets security shirts, three seat bottoms and one seat back.

District Attorney Brown clearly meant business when he stated:

“As the Mets played their final weekend of the 2008 regular season, my office and the New York Mets announced a zero tolerance policy regarding potential theft and/or vandalism at Shea Stadium. Apparently the defendant did not heed the message. His theft of Shea memorabilia has now resulted in a criminal record, the paying of more than a thousand dollars in fines and civil penalties.”

This plea and conviction has sent tremors through Yankee Nation as it remains to be seen whether or not all Yankee players and fans will be vigorously prosecuted for stealing the Mets' thunder for the past few decades.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Crotty Saland, LLP represents clients throughout the New York City region.

What only can be describe as a horrific act if true, a Queens woman is under arrest after she was accused of submerging her three year old son in scalding water. According to the Queens County District Attorney's Office, Regina Cooper came home to find her son had soiled his diaper. Ms. Cooper allegedly became enraged that the child was not successful in his "potty training" and began swearing at the child and stripping off his clothes. Shortly thereafter, prosecutors claim that the little boy was forced into the scalding water of a bathtub.

District Attorney Richard Brown stated in a press release:

“Despite the child’s attempts to get out of the bathtub and his frantic cries, the defendant allegedly held him in the water for a prolonged period of time, resulting in severe scalding over 21 percent of his body. The young child will be permanently scarred – both physically and emotionally – by the experience and the fact that it is his own mother charged with seriously harming him.” Furthermore, "[w] hen she finally pulled him out, his skin that had been submerged
began falling off his body."

Detectives arrested Ms. Cooper and she now faces charges including Assault in the First Degree as well as Assault in the Second Degree. The crimes are punishable by up to 25 and 7 years respectively.

Regardless of the potential term of incarceration that Ms. Cooper faces, all of us, regardless of where we live or what we do for a living, pray and hope that her son makes a quick recovery and is able to lead a healthy and full life.

Crotty Saland LLP, a criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, represents clients throughout the New York City region.

According to the Westchester County District Attorney's Office, Yves Archin, a home health aide working for a 79 year old woman who recently passed away, was arrested by Ardsley (Westchester County) detectives. It is alleged that Ms. Arching perpetrated Identity Theft and other crimes on an unwitting woman under her care who had suffered from a stroke. According to news sources, Ms. Archin not only used the now deceased woman's credit cards, but opened up fraudulent accounts using her personal information. As a result, it is alleged that Ms. Archin charged approximately $59,000 at stores including Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdales and Target.

According to various news websites, the defendant is charged with Identity Theft in the First Degree (NY PL 190.80). Moreover, Ms. Archin is charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY 155.40) for the aggregation of her alleged thefts that exceeded $50,000 and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (NY PL 190.65(1)(c). Grand Larceny in the Second Degree is a "C" felony punishable by up to 5 to 15 years in state prison. Identity Theft in the First Degree is a "D" felony punishable by up to 2 and 2/3 to 7 years in state prison while Scheme to Defraud is an "E" felony punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in state prison.

It is interesting to note that the Scheme to Defraud statute was amended in 2008 to include the defrauding of one or more "vulnerable elderly person." According to New York Penal Law 260.30(3) a "vulnerable elderly person” means:

"[A] person sixty years of age or older who is suffering from a disease or infirmity associated with advanced age and manifested by demonstrable physical, mental or emotional dysfunction to the extent that the person is incapable of adequately providing for his or her own health or personal care."

While I have not seen the complaint or indictment (if in fact she has been indicted), something is missing from the various reports. Regardless of the subsection, Scheme to Defraud requires that a defendant have the intent to defraud either ten or more people or more than one person. Although only one person need to be identified, at least two people need to be the target of the scheme. It may be that there is another alleged victim or target or that there is an error in the reporting of this offense or charging of this crime by law enforcement. Unfortunately for Ms. Archin, this potential error would only apply to the Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, the lowest level offense she is facing.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City region. Jeremy Saland, one of our attorneys, has extensive experience and training in Identity Theft related crimes having served in the Identity Theft Unit and Major Case Section upon its creation by Robert Morgenthau.

Regardless of the crime or crimes you are charged with in New York County (Manhattan), the arrest process or a desk appearance ticket (DAT) will ultimately land you along with your criminal defense attorney at 100 Centre Street...the nexus of all criminal prosecutions in Manhattan. 100 Centre Street is where you will be taken from a precinct or Central Booking for your arraignment before a Manhattan criminal court judge (on certain occasions a case is arraigned in the Midtown Community Court). If your criminal defense lawyer is unable to resolve your case at your arraignment, whether you are initially charged with a misdemeanor or a felony, 100 Centre Street is where you will return for the immediate future for court appearances.

Elizabeth Crotty and Jeremy Saland, the founding partners at Crotty Saland LLP, have walked the halls of 100 Centre Street and 1 Hogan Place (the District Attorney's Office that is attached to the courts) for nearly a combined 20 years as Assistant District Attorneys in Manhattan under Robert Morgenthau and as criminal defense attorneys in New York City. Our experience as prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys has given us a unique perspective having seen and worked in the criminal justice system from both sides. Although we can't share everything in a blog entry, here are some important things you need to know if you are arrested, issued a desk appearance ticket (DAT) or waiting for an arraignment in Manhattan's 100 Centre Street:

Continue reading " New York's 100 Centre Street: The Manhattan Criminal Court From Felony Arraignment & Misdemeanor Desk Appearance Tickets to Court Appearances & Your Criminal Defense " »

It is fairly common in the courts throughout New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx) for criminal defense attorneys to represent clients charged with Resisting Arrest, pursuant to NY Penal Law 205.30. While it certainly can be a legitimate charge, very often the police will add this charge on top of the original offense if a defendant merely "resists" by backing away, swinging his or her arms up and not complying with an officers demands. Do not be mistaken that the law in NY requires a fist fight or shoving to satisfy the elements of Resisting Arrest. No physical violence or injury is necessary.

According to Penal Law 205.30:

A person is guilty of Resisting Arrest when he intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer or peace officer from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or another person.

As addressed above, this resistance need not be violent. In fact, as long as one intends to prevent an officer from making an authorized arrest by engaging in particular conduct, resisting arrest may be charged. See People v. Blandford, 37 A.D.2d 1003 (3 Dept. 1971). Lifting an individual from a seated position who refused to be placed under arrest and carrying that person to a patrol car has been found to be sufficient to establish the crime of Resisting Arrest even though the defendant did not behave in a violent or aggressive manner. See People v. Bauer, 161 Misc.2d 58 (Watertown Cty Ct. 1994).

Another important factor one must consider when defending against the charge of Resisting Arrest is that the underlying arrest must be an "authorized arrest." In other words, the arrest must be based on probable cause either by observations by the officer, for example, or in connection to a warrant. People v. Jensen, 86 N.Y.2d 248 (1995).

Regardless of the set of circumstances, if you are confronted by the police it is usually, if not always, in your best interest to be orderly and "compliant." This does not mean you should merely let the police take advantage of a particular situation. At the same time, you do not want to escalate a potentially dangerous situation. In the event you are wrongly arrested or charged with certain crimes, your criminal defense attorney cannot only make the applicable motions to challenge the legality and sufficiency of the arrest and charged offenses, but he or she can explain to you the available civil remedies as well.

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

According to the Queens County District Attorney's Office, Ron Scott, a Long Island contractor and the owner of US Builder NYC and a representative of Phoenix International Construction Company, is alleged to have defrauded a 74 woman out of $140,000. Mr. Scott is charged on a criminal court complaint with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY PL 155.40), Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree (NY PL 165.52) and a violation of the New York State Lien Law. Each of the theft related charges are "C" felonies punishable by a maximum of 5 to 15 years in state prison and are associated with the theft or possession of stolen property valued in excess of $50,000, but $1,000,000 or less.

According to the District Attorney's Office press release, Mr. Scott was paid this money in both a personal check and bank check after he contracted to build an addition on the home of a Queens woman. It is alleged that the woman paid Mr. Scott this money nearly two years ago and that once deposited, the money was used by Mr. Scott to pay old debts. To date, the work has not been completed.

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

Crotty Saland LLP, a Manhattan based white collar criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City region, is pleased to announce another tremendous result for a client in the arena of fraud and theft allegations. Our client, charged on two separate dockets, allegedly defrauded approximately $35,000 from one individual and approximately $35,000 from a second individual. Prosecutors charged our client with twenty-five felonies in the two criminal court complaints including Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35), Forgery in the Second Degree (NY PL 170.10), Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree (NY PL 170.25) and Identity Theft in the First Degree (NY PL 190.80). Prosecutors alleged that our client stole these monies through drafting checks without permission and using credit cards, including a corporate business card, without authority to do so.

Despite the large value of the alleged theft, approximately $70,000 between two people, Crotty Saland LLP attacked the veracity of one of the complainants as well the length of time between the incident and the reporting of the theft. Moreover, investigation revealed that this complainant may have been trying to "hide" money from his spouse. After further investigation and challenging the prosecution regarding their ability to prove the $35,000 theft beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors dismissed all of the charges.

Although we were not as successful with the second felony case as we were with the first case, Crotty Saland LLP negotiated a tremendous disposition on the second matter as well. In the second case, prosecutors agreed to a misdemeanor plea for Petit Larceny (the "shoplifting" statute) as well as Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. Although the complainant and prosecutors presented us with documentation for a significant portion of the $35,000 as well as a signed stipulation by our client that she in fact owed these monies, we successfully argued that despite the admission and documentation, the facts of the case would establish that the complainant was not being forthright. Even if true, the value of the alleged loss was exaggerated and our client signed the agreement under duress. Fortunately, through our investigation and diligence, we were able to corroborate our position thereby weakening the ability of the prosecution to prove the theft and the loss amount beyond a reasonable doubt. After all of our efforts working with our client for over a year to avoid a felony or jail, the court sentenced our client on the misdemeanor plea to three years of probation (no jail) and $20,000 in total restitution.

As this client learned, each case is unique and requires its own analysis and defense. Whether it takes one month or one year, some felony fraud cases can be negotiated to a lesser offense while others ultimately may not. Furthermore, some cases may require a trial to prove one's innocence where a real risk may be present of a conviction and accompanying jail. Whatever result you are seeking and whether or not it is actually attainable, it is imperative that your counsel be a knowledgeable and a zealous advocate who keeps you informed throughout the process as it unfolds.

It has happened to the best of us....even those who check their accounts daily. Maybe you just inadvertently went over your limit on your credit card or debit card. Well, in New York if you knowingly try to use that credit or debit card and it is "no good," i.e., revoked or canceled, you may be charged with Unlawful Use of a Credit Card or Debit Card pursuant to New York Penal Law Section 165.17. While not as serious as the felony of possessing a stolen debit or credit card, this offense is still a crime.

According to the New York Penal Law 165.17 - Unlawful Use of a Credit or Debit Card:

A person is guilty of Unlawful Use of a Credit Card, Debit Card or Public Benefit Card when in the course of obtaining or attempting to obtain property or a service, he uses or displays a credit card, debit card or public benefit card which he knows to be revoked or canceled.

Unlawful Use of a Credit Card, Debit Card or Public Benefit Card is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail.

It is important to note that a "sister" law, New York Penal Law Section 165.15(1), Theft of Services, is very similar and also punishable by up to 1 year in jail. One of the distinctions between the two crimes, however, is that Theft of Services involves the use of a stolen credit or debit card while Unlawful Use of a Credit Card or Debit Card involves the use of a canceled instrument. Additionally, beyond these two crimes, other related offenses may be perpetrated if you obtain property with that canceled credit card such as Petit Larceny and Grand Larceny. As noted above, mere possession of a stolen credit card is a felony as well.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a Manhattan based criminal defense firm representing clients in New York City and the surrounding suburbs. Crotty Saland,LLP was founded by former Assistant District Attorneys who served in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

As I have noted in the past, possession of contraband, whether it is narcotics or a loaded firearm, may be constructively possessed or based on a legal presumption found in the New York Penal Law. In the area of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the First, Second, Third and Fourth Degrees, pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 265.04, 265.03, 265.02 and 265.01 respectively, that legal presumption is codified in New York Penal Law section 265.15. Although subject to certain nuances which must be addressed in each case by your criminal defense attorney, the following is one specific legal presumption found in New York Penal Law 265.15(3) as it relates to this blog entry and a recent court decision:

"The presence in an automobile, other than a stolen one or a public omnibus, of any firearm, large capacity ammunition feeding device, defaced firearm, defaced rifle or shotgun, defaced large capacity ammunition feeding device, firearm silencer, explosive or incendiary bomb, bombshell, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, dagger, dirk, stiletto, billy, blackjack, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sandbag, sandclub or slungshot is presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons occupying such automobile at the time such weapon, instrument or appliance is found, except under the following circumstances: (a) if such weapon, instrument or appliance is found upon the person of one of the occupants therein; (b) if such weapon, instrument or appliance is found in an automobile which is being operated for hire by a duly licensed driver in the due, lawful and proper pursuit of his or her trade, then such presumption shall not apply to the driver; or (c) if the weapon so found is a pistol or revolver and one of the occupants, not present under duress, has in his or her possession a valid license to have and carry concealed the same."

The presumption above is relatively clear, if not long and wordy. If there is a loaded firearm, or any weapon described above, in a non-stolen vehicle, subject to the exceptions, everyone can be charged for possessing that weapon. A natural question that follows this presumption is as follows: What if a weapon is discarded from the vehicle while the police are in pursuit? Would the "car presumption" apply if the weapon is no longer in the vehicle at the time of the recover? Could all those in the vehicle be charged based on that presumption? According to a Nassau County Supreme Court Justice, the answer is "yes."

Continue reading " Loaded Firearm Recovered Outside Vehicle: NY Supreme Court Finds that Possession of Firearm "Car Presumption" (NY PL 265.15) Still Applies " »

Naquan Thompson, a 22 year old man arrested for an alleged Robbery in Staten Island, New York, decided that life on the chain gang wasn't for him. As police escorted him and his chain gang fellows to Criminal Court, Mr. Thompson decided he would slip the cuffs and take off running. Unfortunately for young Thompson, WABC-TV cameras happened to be filming at the exact moment he broke free.

After hiding out for nearly 30 minutes, the NYPD arrested Mr.Thompson near the ferry where they found him with a broken ankle. Mr. Thompson has compounded his tenuous situation well beyond his fractured ankle. Now, Mr. Thompson potentially faces a new charge of Escape.

A person is guilty of Escape in the Second Degree when, pursuant to subdivision 205.10(2): Having been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of a Class C, D, or E felony, he escapes from custody. Escape in the Second Degree is an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in prison. In the event Mr. Thompson's initial arrest was for Robbery in the First or Second Degree, the crime of Escape in the First Degree, pursuant to New Penal Law 205.15(2), would apply. This crime is punishable as a "D" felony with up to seven years in state prison.

"Custody," pursuant to New York Penal Law section 205.00(2) means restraint by a public servant pursuant to an authorized arrest or an order of a court.

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

To those of us that know him or worked for him, Robert Morgenthau, a/k/a, the “Boss,” was and will continue to be the personification of justice and the pursuit of its principles. In his three and a half decade journey as the Manhattan District Attorney fighting crimes in the streets as well as the “suites” of Manhattan and beyond, Mr. Morgenthau did not bend to public pressure or perception, staying focused on his goal.

Whether a case grabbed the headlines and captivated the public or was only known to the single mother victimized by an abusive partner, Mr. Morgenthau sought to have each case, victim and witness treated with the highest level of professionalism, dignity and respect. Regardless of the media coverage, one thing rang true amongst all of his cases. To each victim, his or her case was the most important. Justice demanded that they be treated accordingly.

Certainly, we can't all agree on what we believe justice is or how to obtain it. Although criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors have adversarial roles in the criminal justice system, it is this training in the pursuit of justice that has further assisted me in representing and connecting with my clients regardless of the legal issue they face. The formal legal education I received at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office under Mr. Morgenthau went far beyond books and lectures. On the front line in the court rooms, the daily reinforcement of our ethical duties, and the constant training in the intricacies of criminal law, I am a better attorney for having served and learned under him. There is no doubt my clients have and will continue to benefit from all my experiences including my time as a prosecutor. The 1000s of attorneys who have revolved through the doors of 1 Hogan Place would likely agree that the "Boss" was invaluable to their practical and ethical development in the field of law as well.

While I cannot formally speak on behalf of all the prosecutors who served under Robert Morgenthau, I am confident we all wish him the best as he travels beyond the walls of 100 Centre Street and thank him for his leadership, dedication and pursuit to make New York a better place.