New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

According to various media sources, White Plains Mayor and former Assemblyman Adam Bradley has been arraigned in White Plains City Court after he was arrested for the crime of Assault in the 3rd Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law section 120.00. It is alleged that the politician got into a dispute with his wife, grabbed her arm, put her finger in the area of the door frame and closed the door. As a result, it is alleged that his wife sustained an injury to her finger.

Although the reports do not appear to indicate Mrs. Adams suffered a serious injury, as I noted in a previous blog entry, when one uses a dangerous instrument (a door can constitute as such) to perpetrate the crime of Assault in the Third Degree, the offense can be elevated to a "D" felony of Assault in the Second Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law section 120.05(2). This crime is punishable by up to seven years in state prison as opposed to the misdemeanor which carries a maximum sentence of one year.

Despite the potential gravity of such an accusation, Mayor Bradley has adamantly maintained that he never mistreated his wife.

For further reading on the crimes of Assault in the Third Degree and Assault in the Second Degree, please read this entry.

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

The NY criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland, LLP have handled a significant number of Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs) and "pink" summonses for our clients. In Manhattan, these cases are often dealt with at 100 Centre Street, 346 Broadway ("pink" ticket / summons court) or at Midtown Community Court. Whether the summons or Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) charges you with Shoplifting Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25 or NY PL 165.40), Marijuana (NY PL 221.10), Drug Possession (NY PL 220.03), Theft of Services (NY PL 165.15), Assault (NY PL 120.00), Trespass (NY PL 140.10), or even Disorderly Conduct (NY PL 240.20), the ramifications of mishandling the Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) is no different than if you were arrested, booked and put through the criminal justice system. That means, you can still end up with a criminal record even though you were merely given a "ticket" for a criminal act.

For the purpose of today's entry, I will discuss the differences between the potential Manhattan courts that deal with these charges. Again, a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) or "pink ticket" summons in Manhattan is returnable to 100 Centre Street, Midtown Community Court or 346 Broadway.

100 Centre Street

The criminal court building houses the majority of the criminal courts in Manhattan. This building is where cases are generally arraigned (where the judge informs you of the charges) and where an accused sees the judges over the course of their pending cases. Desk Appearance Tickets (DAT) in Manhattan are returnable here as well. On the first floor of 100 Centre Street are the arraignment courts. On the date you are to go to court to deal with your desk appearance ticket you should arrive no later than 9:00 am. After going through security, you will wait in the court or outside the courtroom if it is filled to capacity. Sometimes, due to the number of cases being arraigned, the wait can be hours before you see an attorney or the judge. For this reason, and others as well, it is important to retain an attorney ahead of time. Generally, this expedites the process significantly. For more information on 100 Centre Street, follow this link for earlier blog entry.

Midtown Community Court

Located at 314 West 54th Street between 8th and 9th Avenue, Midtown Community Court often handles quality of life crimes in the area of midtown such as Times Square. The closest subway station to Midtown Community Court is the 7th Avenue, B, D or E as well as the 50th Street C or E trains. The offenses prosecuted here are misdemeanors or violations and very often deal with non-violent crimes. Although not felonies, these crimes are still punishable by up to one year jail. Make no mistake, merely because you are being prosecuted in community court by no means make the case less significant. In fact, if the case is not resolved at your arraignment, it may be adjourned to 100 Centre Street. It is important to note that crimes involving Prostitution and Escort Services often remain in Midtown Community Court and are not transferred to 100 Centre Street.

Unlike 100 Centre Street, Midtown Community Court has one court room. Although just as formal, there are significantly less cases prosecuted here and the atmosphere is not as overwhelming. That being said, if your Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) requires your appearance at 9:30 am, get to court by 9 am because the line to get in often extends outside the building. Moreover, once inside, you will be screened and walk through a metal detector.

In addition to misdemeanors, Midtown Community Court also handles "pink ticket" summonses. Often times these cases are resolved with a fine, community service, a quality of life program or a combination of these sentences.

346 Broadway

Located at - you guessed it - 346 Broadway, the summons court handles most "pink ticket" summonses issued by the police. This court is located between Lafayette Street and Broadway. The entrance is on Leonard Street. The closest subway station is the 6 at Canal Street and the 4,5 or 6 train at Brooklyn Bridge / City Hall. Additionally, the 1 train at Franklin Street, the A or C at Chambers Street or the R or W at City Hall are relatively close. As noted above, if your case is scheduled for 9:30 am, get online by 9:00 am. Not only can the line to go through security extend around the side of the building, once inside, you must go to the second floor and wait on another line. This line is often 25 to 50 people long. When you are done waiting, you turn in your ticket to a clerk who will advise you which court room on the second floor to go to. Because these courtrooms are small, if you are not there early there is a chance you will have to wait in the hallway as there will be no seating.

Like all of the other courts, if you cannot afford counsel one will be provided for you. Having your own counsel, however, often significantly expedites the process. Regardless, each case is handled the same at 346 Broadway as there is no prosecutor, but a retired judge who presides over the cases. These judges are judicial hearing officers who do not necessarily follow the guidelines for similar prosecutions at 100 Centre Street or Midtown Community Court. However, if you and your criminal defense attorney believe your criminal case is being treated unfairly or differently, a request can be made to have that case transferred to 100 Centre Street. This can be discussed with your counsel and may be advisable if the case cannot be resolved appropriately at 346 Broadway.

Although merely a snapshot into the different Manhattan courts, this entry addresses questions often raised by those unfamiliar with the courts. For further information or to educate yourself on Desk Appearance Tickets (DAT) or a summons, check NewYorkDAT.Com regularly for updates to the blog.

Founded by two criminal defense attorneys who previously served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Crotty Saland LLP represents clients throughout the New York City region.

New York white collar crimes are found in all different shapes and sizes. From misdemeanor to felonies and from crimes involving individuals to large multi-party schemes, Mortgage Fraud, pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 187.05, 187.10, 187.15, 187.20 and 187.25, is one of the growing areas of white collar crime. Although not as common as "regular" Mortgage Fraud, a crime associated with real estate transactions and this particular offense is Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property pursuant to New York Penal Law section 185.10.

NY PL 185.10, Pursuant to Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property:

A person is guilty of Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property when, having theretofore executed a mortgage of real or personal property or any instrument intended to operate as such, he sells, assigns, exchanges, secretes, injures, destroys or otherwise disposes of any part of the property, upon which the mortgage or other instrument is at the time a lien, with intent thereby to defraud the mortgagee or a purchaser thereof.

Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property is a class "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

Briefly, for one to perpetrate this crime, one must possess an "intent to defraud." In fact, it has been held that one is not guilty of this crime if one does not possess this fraudulent intent. See People v. Staton, 79 A.D. 634 (2 Dept. 1909) (There was no "intent to defraud" where a mortgagor shipped his mortgaged goods to his spouse who was in another state. The mortgage stipulated this could not be done without the consent of the mortgagee. The mortgagor did not attempt to conceal anything and made voluntary payments on his mortgage. Therefore, there was no "intent to defraud.")

Even if one is found to have the "intent to defraud," it is likely that the crime of Fraudulent Disposition of Mortgaged Property is the least of one's concerns. If one obtains money or property, for example, valued in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, one may also face the crimes of Grand Larceny in the Third and Second Degrees where the punishment may be up to seven or fifteen years in prison respectively. Moreover, a defendant may face additional felonies including, but not limited to, Falsifying Business Records, Forgery and Offering a False Instrument for Filing.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients in white collar criminal matters. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland, LLP is located in New York, NY.

According to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., Marvell Scott, a former WABC newsman and sportscaster in New York, has been arrested and indicted by a New York County Grand Jury for the alleged rape of a runaway 14 year old girl.

It is alleged that Scott, who recently left the world of television to focus on his medical studies, paid a possible pimp to take a 16 year old and 14 year old to his apartment after meeting them in Times Square. It is further claimed that Scott raped the 14 year old girl as the 16 year old was present in the bedroom.

Scott faces one count of Rape in the Second Degree, a class D felony punishable by up to 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in prison, as well as the misdemeanors of Patronizing a Prostitute in the Third Degree and Endangering the Welfare of a Child. These two crimes are punishable by up to one year in jail. Although I have not seen a copy of the criminal court complaint or the indictment, it appears that the theory of the Rape charge is in line with the applicable law. That is, Scott, who is over 18 years old, had sexual intercourse with a girl who was less than 15 years old. This offense, is not one that involves "forcible compulsion." Although not applicable here, there is an affirmative defense in the New York Penal Law for Rape in the Second Degree where the defendant was less than 4 years older than the victim at the time of the act.

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

Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has announced the arrest of David Cohen, the owner of seven popular Manhattan (New York County) clothing stores including Mystique Boutique (547 Broadway, 324 Fifth Avenue, and 412 Broadway), Madness Boutique (305 Canal Street), Exstaza (491 Broadway) and Amsterdam (454 Broadway and 365-367 Canal Street). Beyond the arrest, AG Cuomo is seeking $1.5 Million in unpaid wages and damages due to Mr. Cohen's alleged scheme of failing to pay proper wages to his employees and failing to report proper taxes.

A defiant AG Cuomo stated:

"In this case, workers were not only ripped off but were also intimidated to make sure they stayed quiet. All workers deserve fair pay and have a right to stand up for themselves. Today’s civil and criminal charges should send a strong message: No one is above the law."

AG Cuomo's calculation that employees are due $1.5 million is based on his office's allegation that 150 employees were forced to work ten or more hours a day without any overtime compensation. Compounding his potential problems, prosecutors claim that Mr. Cohen offered $50,000 to workers to find out who was cooperating with the investigation while other employees were threatened not to cooperate.

As a result of his alleged failure to pay proper wages, falsifying of tax records and threatening of employees, Mr. Cohen is charged with nineteen counts of both Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree and Offering a False Instrument for Filing. These offenses are "E" felonies punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in state prison. Additionally, Mr. Cohen faces numerous misdemeanors, punishable by up to one year in jail, including Tampering with a Witness and Failure to Pay Wages.

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

According to Brooklyn (Kings County) District Attorney Charles Hynes, Robert Delvicario, Lennox Johnson, Shanda Bruce and Thermine Remy, and three corporations, Adonis Abstract LLC, LBW Corporation, and Robo Capital Securities, Inc., have all been indicted by a Grand Jury for crimes including, Enterprise Corruption, Mortgage Fraud, Grand Larceny, Identity Theft, and Falsifying Business Records. Prosecutors began the investigation into the defendants after the unsolved 2008 murders of attorney Mark Schwartz and his wife Christina Petrowski.

According to the District Attorney's Office, it is alleged that "between 2006 and 2009, the defendants participated in a series of financial and real estate scams in order to steal and launder money from the clients of Schwartz’ law firm, as well as clients of Adonis Abstract." The total amount of these alleged frauds exceeded $1 million.

Prosecutors claim that the defendants, including Mr. Delvicario, a one time federal agent, recruited friends to act as "straw buyers." At the behest of the defendants, these individuals would allegedly make fraudulent real estate transactions. Once money was obtained in a transaction, prosecutors claim that the defendants laundered the proceeds by fraudulently opening up bank accounts with stolen identities. Ultimately, prosecutors contend that the defendants would exhaust these accounts and open up new ones by perpetrating a new round of identity theft related offenses. Additionally, the money obtained in these fraudulent transactions may have been used to make personal investments. To that end, law enforcement officials state that a straw buyer involved in a mortgage deal ultimately had the money forwarded to Mr. Delvicario who then used those mortgage proceeds to pay off his own home loan.

If convicted of Enterprise Corruption, the defendants face up to 25 years in state prison. Although the press release does not indicate the degree of the other offenses, it is likely that the Money Laundering charge is the same level offense as the Enterprise Corruption. Depending on whether or not the Grand Larceny was aggregated into one amount, the defendants would face up to 25 years in prison or multiple counts up to 15 years in prison. Identity Theft in the First Degree and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree are punishable by up to 7 and 4 years respectively.

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.

As a New York criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor I have represented and prosecuted a significant amount of people for DWI / DUI crimes including Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) sections §1192.3, §1192.2 and §1192.1. On occasion, an accused asserts that they in fact were not "driving" the vehicle and, therefore, are not guilty of these offenses. While there may be merit to such a defense, where do courts stand on this issue not as a defense at trial, but as it relates to probable cause for the police to make the initial arrest? In other words, if you were merely warming up in the vehicle with the engine running, but not moving or "operating" it otherwise, would the police have probable cause to arrest you once they approached your vehicle, smelled the alcohol, etc.? While each case requires its own unique analysis, a Suffolk County District Court (a similar level court to a New York City Criminal Court that handles misdemeanors), recently addressed this issue.

In People v. Ciccone, 2008SU50102, the accused was charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs in violation of New York State VTL §1192.3. In that case, the police officer observed the defendant's vehicle on the shoulder of the road. When he approached, the officer observed the defendant sleeping in the driver's side with the engine running. Knocking on the window, the officer smelled alcohol on the defendant's breath once the window was lowered and the defendant woke up. After that, the officer observed numerous other signs of the accused's alleged intoxication and ultimately arrested him.

Although there were other alleged offenses and issues raised, the defendant's attorney challenged the police officer's probable cause to arrest his client based on his position that his client was not "operating" the vehicle. Despite his contentions and legal arguments, the court disagreed.

Continue reading for the court's decision and analysis...

Continue reading " Driving While Intoxicated in New York (DWI & DUI): Probable Cause to Arrest for VTL 1192 When the Vehicle is Not in Motion " »

Cyrus Vance, Jr., the District Attorney of New York County (Manhattan), has announced one of what will likely be numerous changes to the office run by Robert Morgenthau since the early 1970s. According to a press release issued by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, District Attorney Vance has created the Major Economic Crimes Bureau. In doing so, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is combining both the Frauds Bureau and Investigation Division Central (IDC). Richard Weber, currently the Chief of the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) of the United States Department of Justice, will be the lead prosecutor and chief of the newly created bureau.

Both the Frauds Bureau and IDC, formerly called DANY (District Attorney New York) Over Seas, is staffed by exceptionally experienced and seasoned prosecutors. Although IDC has had more involvement in international crimes and has had some of the largest settlements and forfeitures in recent history, both of these bureaus already were at the forefront of white collar prosecutions. Now, the Major Economic Crimes Bureau will specialize in prosecutions relating to securities, commodities, and investment fraud, mortgage fraud and financial institution fraud commercial, bribery and kickbacks, bank fraud, structured investment schemes, internet fraud, international money laundering and terror financing.

It will be interesting to see how the Investigation Division of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office continues to morph under the new leadership. What will become of the Rackets, Money Laundering and Special Prosecutions Bureaus? Will there be overlap in their prosecutions with the Major Economic Crimes Bureau or will they too be restructured into new entities? Regardless of the form or name they take, there is no doubt that the units and bureaus under District Attorney Vance, like Robert Morgenthau, will continue to forge ahead and remain leaders in the arena of white collar criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Crotty Saland LLP is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Crotty Saland LLP represents clients in white collar criminal investigations and prosecutions throughout the New York City region.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. announced the arrest and indictment of Steven Mandala, a former stockbroker with the Maxim Group and Merrill Lynch. According to the District Attorney's Office, Mr. Mandala stole $780,000 from Merill Lynch after he allegedly told Merrill Lynch that he was not only a partner at Maxim Group (he was merely an employee stockbroker making $100,000), but that he was in charge of managing $300 million of clients' assets. As a result of his work with Maxim Group, prosecutors allege that Mr. Mandala claimed he generated $1.5 million in revenue. Due to Mr. Mandala's claims, alleged "improvements" to his resume, and his assertion he was compensated in the neighborhood of $765,000 a year by Maxim Group, Merrill Lynch hired the stockbroker and advanced Mr. Mandala $780,000. As a result of his chicanery, which was somewhat less successful, Mr. Mandala was charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Money Laundering in the Second Degree, Identity Theft in the First Degree, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree.

Despite Mr. Mandala's alleged claims that he managed $300 million and generated $1.5 million in revenue, it is alleged that Mr. Mandala not only rarely went to work, but that he brought in only $20,000 in new business. During he approximately two months as an employee at Merrill Lynch, it is alleged by prosecutors that Mr. Mandala deposited the $780,000 into his parents' account and purchased a Ferrari under his father's name. Mr. Mandala's employment came to an end when he allegedly sent an email to Merrill Lynch indicating that he was not only resigning, but that all his personal effects should be discarded.

Unfortunately for Mr. Mandala, Merrill Lynch employees did not toss all of his "stuff" and an investigation revealed numerous credit cards in the name of Mr. Mandala's girlfriend in the office. Digging further, prosecutors ascertained that tens of thousands of dollars were allegedly billed to these credit cards without the true owner's knowledge.

Although Mr. Mandala faces up to fifteen years in state prison on the counts relating to Grand Larceny and Money Laundering, seven years in state prison on the counts relating to Identity Theft and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, and four years in state prison on the count relating to Falsifying Business Records, one thing truly stands out. Beyond the alleged magnitude of the theft, were was Merrill Lynch's due diligence? Who failed to verify or confirm Mr. Mandala's history and experience? How does anyone - especially a firm entrusted with clients' hard earned money - fail to contact the prior employer or spend a few dollars on a background check? Where is the oversight? Stop me before I get on a roll...

Crotty Saland, LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients in white collar criminal cases ranging from alleged embezzlement in the tens of thousands of dollars to multi-million dollar tax fraud schemes. Prior to starting Crotty Saland, LLP, both founding partners served in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office's Trial Division as well as the Special Prosecutions Bureau and Identity Theft Units.

It is very easy in New York State to compound a bad mistake and inadvertently roll it into a felony case. To find an example of this, one needs to look no further than the Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.40(4) and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 165.45(2). These two statutes address the theft and possession of stolen debit and credit cards and are "E" felonies punishable by up to four years in state prison.

Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, New York Penal Law 155.30(4):

A person is guilty of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree when he steals property and when the property consists of a credit card or debit card.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree, New York Penal Law 165.45(2):

A person is guilty of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree when he knowingly possesses stolen property, with intent to benefit himself or a person other than an owner thereof or to impede the recovery by an owner thereof, and when the property consists of a credit card, debit card or public benefit card.

It is very important to note that a conviction for these offenses will stand even if the particular credit card that is stolen was previously canceled or revoked. See, People v. Peterson, 216 A.D.2d 10 (1st Dept. 1995); see also, People v. Winfield, 145 A.D.2d 449 (2nd Dept. 1988). Even more importantly, one may be convicted of either Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 165.45(2)) or Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 155.30(4) even if one does not know that one stole a credit card. In other words, if you steal a wallet hoping to get some quick cash, but it turns out there was a credit card there, your crime can potentially be elevated from a misdemeanor to a felony. See, People v. Mitchell 77 N.Y.2d 624 (1991) (Prosecution "not required to prove that defendant was cognizant that the stolen property she possessed was a credit card because the statute imposes no such burden. Rather, the correct burden...is only that she knowingly possessed stolen property which, in fact, consisted of a credit card, and which she intended for her own benefit.")

Although other elements of these statutes must be established and your criminal defense attorney may be able to successfully challenge those elements, make not mistake. The law does not require that you are aware that you are possessing the stolen credit, but only that you possessed or stole property that was in fact a credit card.

Crotty Saland LLP is Manhattan criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York metropolitan area. The NY criminal defense lawyers who founded Crotty Saland LLP previously served as Manhattan prosecutors in the Trial Division and prosecuted complex fraud cases in the Identity Theft and Special Prosecutions Bureaus.

Criminal defense attorneys and lawyers throughout New York City regularly deal with the various crimes relating to and degrees of Assault found in Article 120 of the Penal Law. The most common, Assault in the Third Degree ( New York Penal Law 120.00), is a misdemeanor offense punishable by up to one year in jail. A more serious crime, Assault in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 120.05), is a felony offense punishable by up to seven years in state prison. Although it will be discussed further below, one of the more common reasons why an intentional misdemeanor Assault in the Third Degree is "elevated" to a felony Assault in the Second Degree is because a "dangerous instrument" is used during the commission of the lesser crime. While there are various legal reasons to raise the level of the crime, where that basis is the use of a "dangerous instrument," the actual injury inflicted for the misdemeanor and felony level crime is no different. As will be explained below, if you punch someone in the eye and give him a black eye that swells shut you may face the misdemeanor crime. If you do the same thing, but use the heel of your shoe, a baseball bat or even the door of your car, your crime may be elevated to a felony because your use of a "dangerous instrument." With this in mind, I will first deal with the applicable definitions of the crimes of Assault in the Third and Second Degrees as well as what constitutes a "dangerous instrument." Once that is done, I will address a few court decisions that have addressed when an instrument is considered "dangerous" under the law and, as a result, and individual had his or her misdemeanor Assault charge raised to a felony offense.

NY PL 120.00(1) - Assault in the Third Degree

"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."

NY PL 120.00(2) - Assault in the Second Degree

"A person is guilty of Assault in the Second Degree when with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he causes such injury to such person or to a third person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument."

NY PL 10.00(13) - Definition of Dangerous Instrument

“'Dangerous instrument'” means any instrument, article or substance, including a “'vehicle'” as that term is defined in this section, which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious physical injury."

Now that you have the definitions, continue reading for the analysis...

Continue reading " New York's Assault in the Second Degree & Your Criminal Defense: How Prosecutors Can "Bump Up" Assault in the Third Degree (NY PL120.00) to a Felony of Assault in the Second Degree (NY PL120.05(2)) " »

Whether you are issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) or you have been arrested in Manhattan, Brooklyn or anywhere else in New York, if you possess a controlled substance you may be charged with New York Penal Law section 220.03. This offense, Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the 7th Degree, is an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and applies to such drugs as cocaine, crack-cocaine, heroin, extacy, oxycodone, etc. Make no mistake. If convicted of NY PL 220.03, you will have a criminal record that will not just go away. Even a plea to a Disorderly Conduct (NY PL 240.20 - a common offer in misdemeanor drug cases) can have real life ramifications years down the road.

Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree, NY PL 220.03, is defined as follows:

A person is guilty of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses a controlled substance.

Although the above definition is very basic, two things should be clear. First, it is important to note that this charge does not apply to marijuana related offenses. Second, there is no mention of a particular quantity or amount of the controlled substance that is needed to establish a violation of NY PL 220.03. The reason why the statute leaves out any threshold amount is because quantity does not have any relevance on this particular charge as long as there is enough to establish the actual presence of the drug in question.

The Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, has found that an unusable amount of cocaine residue sufficiently establishes this crime. People v. Mizell, 72 N.Y.2d 651 (1988). In fact, the Court of Appeals, referencing earlier and lower court decisions, stated that "[s]o long as the quantity is sufficient to permit proper identification as a controlled substance, amount is immaterial." To be clear...if the prosecution can test and find the presence of the controlled substance it is irrelevant that it was "merely" residue that you could no longer use or sell.

Although the amount is immaterial as to the charge of NY PL 220.03, if the prosecution can establish that the weight of the controlled substance was 500 mg, an eighth of an ounce or even greater, felony charges may be brought. Moreover, if the People can establish you had the intent to sell the controlled substance a felony offense may be charged as well. Obviously, these charges have much more significant ramifications such as terms of incarceration in state prison.

For further information on drug crimes and criminal defense, please review our earlier articles relating to constructive possession (when possession of drugs is not physical) and whether prosecutors need to provide a laboratory analysis at your arraignment for drug charges.

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

You have been arrested with a print out of checking account numbers or a list of maiden names of ten different people. Although it is crumpled up in your wallet, you had not actually used the information or attempted to use that information. Well, is the mere possession of that personal information a violation of New York Penal Law Section 190.81, Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information?

Pursuant to NY PL 190.81, Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information:

A person is guilty of Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Third Degree when he or she knowingly possesses a person's financial services account number or code, savings account number or code, checking account number or code, brokerage account number or code, credit card account number or code, debit card number or code, automated teller machine number or code, personal identification number, mother's maiden name, computer system password, electronic signature or unique biometric data that is a fingerprint, voice print, retinal image or iris image of another person knowing such information is intended to be used in furtherance of the commission of a crime defined in this

Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Third Degree is a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

Now that you have a general understanding, or at least definition, of the crime of Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Third Degree, you are ready for more legal analysis after the jump...

Continue reading " Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information (NY PL 190.81, 190.82 & 190.83) & Your Criminal Defense: Does New York Law Require the Use of the Personal Information? " »

Imam Zul-Qarnain Shahid, a New York City Jails Chaplin, was arrested yesterday after x-rays allegedly revealed he had three razors and a pair of scissors on his person when he attempted to enter a New York City Department of Corrections jail in lower Manhattan. Upon setting off an alarm, corrections officers allegedly recovered the razors and scissors from a bag held by Imam Sahid. There is no public information at this time whether or not he was scheduled to see a particular prisoner or prisoners. As a result of this alleged incident, law enforcement officials state that he is charged with Promoting Prison Contraband in the First Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 205.25.

New York Penal Law 205.25(1) sets forth this crime as follows:

A person is guilty of Promoting Prison Contraband in the First Degree when he knowingly and unlawfully introduces any dangerous contraband into a detention facility.

According to the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, razor blades would certainly qualify as "dangerous contraband." In determining whether the scissor is also "dangerous contraband," one can look to a test established by the Court.

"[T]he test for determining whether an item is dangerous contraband is whether its particular characteristics are such that there is a substantial probability that the item will be used in a manner that is likely to cause death or other serious injury, to facilitate an escape, or to bring about other major threats to a detention facility's institutional safety or security." People v. Finley, 10 N.Y.3d 647, 657 (2008).

While this case is still in its infancy, all eyes will be watching to see how it plays out. Certainly, nobody is more interested in the outcome than Imam Zul-Qarnain Sahid, who faces up to 7 years in state prison if convicted after this most recent brush with the law. Previously, Imam Sahid served approximately 14 years in prison after a Murder and Robbery conviction in 1979. That being said, from a criminal defense attorney's perspective, one important, if not the most important, issue that prosecutors must face and will likely be raised by Imam Zul-Qarnaun Sahid is not whether the items on his person were dangerous contraband, but whether or not he knowingly brought the contraband into the facility or accidentally did so without knowing they were in his bag.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. The criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland, LLP represent clients throughout the region in all criminal matters.

According to reports, Joseph Graves, the boyfriend of Broadway actress Ashley Yeater, allegedly beat his girlfriend's yorkshire terrier with a belt buckle. It is further alleged that Mr. Graves admitted to striking the dog when investigators confronted him. Although the case has not been presented to a New York County (Manhattan) Grand Jury, Mr. Graves was arrested and charged with the "E" felony of Aggravated Animal Cruelty pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law section 353 (AML 353). If convicted, Mr. Graves faces up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in state prison although a mandatory term of incarceration is not required by law.

Not only is Mr. Graves accused of striking and injuring the featherweight animal, but the ASPCA's Joseph Pentangelo stated that he did not seek medical attention for the six pound dog until two days after the alleged incident.

While Mr. Graves and his attorney will certainly mount a vigorous defense, Manhattan jurors are generally not sympathetic to alleged abuse of an animal, especially tea-cup sized dogs that are not know for their ferocity. Mr. Graves certainly may have a valid and compelling defense and time will tell what strategy he implements.

Crotty Saland LLP is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the metropolitan area. Crotty Saland LLP was founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors.

Joseph Gullotta, a Queens fourth grade elementary school teacher, and Abraham Fox, a teachers assistant, were arrested and arraigned in Queens County Criminal Court after it was alleged that the two adults encouraged and permitted a nine year old and ten year old to engage in a physical confrontation. Both men are charged with two counts of New York Penal Law 260.10(1), Endangering the Welfare of a Child.

According to the Queens County District Attorney Richard Brown:

“When two fourth graders became involved in a verbal dispute, their teacher allegedly told one of the students that he should ‘take it out’ on another student. When parents send their children off to school, their teachers have an obligation to provide a safe environment for them.”

Although not a battle between "Mad Max" and "Master Blaster" overseen by a post-apocalyptic Tina Turner, the young boys did hurt each other. One child suffered from a split lip and the other sustained bruising and swelling on his head.

The Queens County District Attorney's Office press release details the incident further:

Two boys had a verbal altercation that escalated at the alleged encouragement of Mr. Gullotta. "When the two boys began grabbing each others' arms and shoulders and wrestling, Gullotta allegedly told a female student to close the door and instructed the other students to back up. During the wrestling match, [the first boy's] head struck [the second boy’s] mouth, resulting in a laceration and bleeding to [the first boy’s] lower lip and swelling and bruising to the top and back of [the second boy's] head. It is further alleged that though Fox was present in the classroom during the incident he did not attempt to stop the two boys from wrestling nor did he offer them assistance after they were injured.

"It is additionally alleged that despite the students’ injuries and Fox’s observation that [the fist boy] might need stitches, neither Gullotta nor Fox offered either student an opportunity to go to the school nurse until two school periods later, at approximately 11:10 a.m., when Gullotta allowed [the first boy] to go alone to the nurse’s office. At that time, Gullotta allegedly instructed [the first boy] to tell the nurse that someone had dropped a pencil and that [the second boy’s] head accidently collided with [the first boy's] mouth when they both bent down to pick up the pencil. As allegedly instructed, [the first boy] told the nurse the ‘pencil’ story and also voiced concern about his friend [the second boy] who complained that his head ached. It is alleged that the nurse told [the first boy] to go back to the classroom and get [the second boy]. This time, it is alleged, Gullotta escorted [the second boy] to the nurse’s office and instructed him to tell the same made-up story that he had told [the first boy]."

"The incident came to light when the parent of one of the students involved in the incident overheard them talking about it."

As noted above, the defendants are charged with Endangering the Welfare of a Child, an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. According to New York Penal Law 260.10(1):

A person is guilty of Endangering the Welfare of a Child when he knowingly acts in a manner likely to be injurious to the physical, mental or moral welfare of a child less than seventeen years old or directs or authorizes such child to engage in an occupation involving a substantial risk of danger to his life or health.

Although the two men are only charged with one count each for the two children involved in the alleged altercation, case law in New York dictates that the harm perpetrated by a defendant need not be directed at a particular child. Arguably, the defendants could face significantly more charges for the girl who was allegedly told to close the door of the classroom and for those that were "forced" to watch the incident. Previous entries address this issue (link 1 and link 2).

Regardless, despite the references made above a 1980s classic movie, if true, this incident is no joking matter and the defendants not only face real criminal consequences, but potential potential devastation to their respective careers.

Crotty Saland LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland LLP utilize their experience on both sides of the criminal justice system to work zealously for their clients.