New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

The New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland LLP are pleased to announce that we recently expanded the New York White Collar Crime section of our website. While each case requires its own analysis and the information on the website and blog should not be used as advice, the New York criminal defense lawyers and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland LLP view the detailed New York Grand Larceny section and accompanying blog as a top source for information on New York theft and larceny crimes. Whether you are investigated or arrested in Manhattan for Grand Larceny by Embezzlement, Brooklyn for Grand Larceny by Extortion, Westchester for Grand Larceny of a Credit Card or Debit Card, the Bronx for Grand Larceny of a Vehicle, Queens for Grand Larceny of a Firearm or any other form of Grand Larceny (NY PL 155.30, 155.35, 155.40 or 155.42) in New York, the information contained in these sections are for your review. Certainly one's best defense to a charge of Grand Larceny is never getting involved in the crime in the first place, but educating one's self on the law of Grand Larceny so one can understand the nuances, degrees and punishment for the crime is also invaluable.

If you have been accused of or are being investigated for Grand Larceny anywhere in New York City or the metropolitan area, please review the New York Grand Larceny section found under the White Collar Crime topic area of Crotty Saland LLP's website at CrottySaland.Com. Additionally, please review NewYorkCriminalLawyerblog.Com and search for Grand Larceny or review the NY Theft Offense, NY White Collar Crime and the NY Fraud Related Offenses sections of the blog. For further information on the types of Grand Larceny cases handled by Crotty Saland LLP and the Grand Larceny results, please review the Case Results section of the website.

Although no substitute for a consultation with a New York criminal defense lawyer as to your particular set of facts, the above resources should be able to put you in a position to have a better grasp on this area of the New York Penal Law.

Crotty Saland LLP is a New York white collar criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors and is located approximately two blocks from the state and federal courts in New York City.

With the search by New York State to find money to plug the budget gap, prosecutors are continuing to come down hard on New York white collar crimes where restitution or asset forfeiture may be part of a disposition. Two sets of crimes, New York Insurance Fraud (Article 176 of the NY Penal Law and New York Grand Larceny (Article 155 of the NY Penal Law, are two such crimes. In fact, often times when one is investigated, arrested or indicted for Insurance Fraud in New York, the crime of Grand Larceny is an integral part of that investigation, arrest or indictment.

While I will not address the definitions of each of these crimes (extensive information on Grand Larceny in New York and Insurance Fraud in New York can be found through the respective links), an interesting question is as follows: If you are charged with both crimes, but ultimately you are acquitted of one of those crimes, can you still be convicted of the other or is it legally "repugnant" and invalid?

On its face, if you are alleged to have perpetrated Insurance Fraud and as a result obtained or "stole" money you were not entitled to, but a judge or jury acquits you of the Grand Larceny, how can the Insurance Fraud "survive?" After all, isn't it the purpose of the alleged criminal scheme involving Insurance Fraud to steal money and commit a larceny?

Unfortunately, law is not math or science. The answer to the above question is it "depends" on your jurisdiction since New York's highest court has not rendered a specific decision as to Insurance Fraud and Grand Larceny along with a repugnant verdict. Although the following is not an in depth analysis of the issue and should not be relied upon as a substitute to discussing the evidence in your case with an experienced New York criminal defense attorney, the following two cases certainly shed light on the question.

In People v. People v. Alfaro, 108 A.D.2d 517 (2nd Dept. 1985), the Appellate Court held that the verdict acquitting Alfaro on the attempted larceny offense did not render his conviction on the Insurance Fraud repugnant or legally improper. The Court stated that:

"In creating the crime of insurance fraud, the Legislature and the Governor obviously did not believe that it and the crime of larceny contained identical elements ( see, Insurance Law § 38; Governor's Approval Memorandum, 1981 McKinney's Session Laws, pp 2617-2618) and the statutory language itself shows this to be so. Larceny requires a finding of an “intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same” and a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of property from its owner (Penal Law § 155.05 [1] ). On the other hand, insurance fraud requires a finding that the defendant “knowingly and with intent to defraud presents * * * any written statement as part of, or in support of, an application for the issuance of * * * a claim for payment or other benefit pursuant to an insurance policy” (Penal Law § 176.05)."

"Thus, it is clear that the elements of the two are completely different and that an acquittal of a larceny charge does not negate an essential element of insurance fraud. While larceny provisions address the wrongful taking of property with the intent to deprive someone of that property, the essence of insurance fraud is the filing of a false written statement as part of a claim for insurance. Consequently, the trier of fact may have concluded that the defendant intended to defraud the insurance company but did not intend to steal property ( see, People v. Pisano, 105 A.D.2d 1156, 482 N.Y.S.2d 593). Though perhaps illogical, the verdicts may stand ( see, United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 105 S.Ct. 471, 83 L.Ed.2d 461; People v. Goodfriend, 64 N.Y.2d 695, 485 N.Y.S.2d 519, 474 N.E.2d 1187; People v. Pisano, supra ; People v. Gross, 51 A.D.2d 191, 198, 379 N.Y.S.2d 885; People v. Pugh, 36 A.D.2d 845, 321 N.Y.S.2d 504, supra )."

Despite the holding in Alfaro, a lower court in Ulster County confronted with similar facts found that the acquittal on the attempted larceny charge rendered a conviction on the Insurance Fraud count repugnant and therefore, invalid. In People v. Alfano, 131 Misc.2d 843, (Ulster Cty Ct. 1986), a County court sided with the dissenting justice in the Alfaro decision (names are close, but different). The Ulster County court, citing the dissent, reasoned that:

"[T]here does not appear to be any logical way that a person could engage in insurance fraud by knowingly and with intent to defraud submitting papers in support of a false claim for payment, without at the same time attempting to commit a larceny. That is, when one submits false papers in support of a claim for payment for his own benefit or that of another, he is concomitantly attempting to commit a larceny by wrongfully obtaining property by false pretenses from the insurer.... Thus, even though the language of the statutes is not the same, the underlying meaning clearly coincides."

While the two cases above are not from the Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, they certainly give insight into the reasoning behind the respective decisions. Although neither the 2nd Department or Ulster County renders decisions that are controlling in a Manhattan courtroom, for example (the 1st Department is the appellate court for Manhattan), both of these cases may be applicable in your particular circumstances and are worthy of further discussion or review with your New York criminal defense attorney.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland LLP is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City region. For further information on various New York Penal Law statutes, legal decisions and newsworthy cases, please review the New York criminal lawyer blog at NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com or our website.

Much like the New York Grand Larceny statutes, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in New York ranges from a misdemeanor (NY PL 165.40) punishable by up to one year in jail (often associated with New York shoplifting and Desk Appearance Tickets throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx) to a felony punishable by up to 8 and 1/3 to 25 years in state prison. Before addressing the legal presumptions and defenses set forth in the penal law, I will briefly address each of the varying levels of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property solely as it relates to the value of the property.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in Fifth Degree - NY PL 165.40

A person is guilty of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree when he knowingly possesses property that is stolen and he also has the intent to benefit himself or another person or impedes the owner from recovering the property. New York Penal Law 165.40 is an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in Fourth Degree - NY PL 165.45

The value of the stolen property exceeds $1,000. New York Penal Law 165.45 is an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in state prison.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in Third Degree - NY PL 165.50

The value of the stolen property exceeds $3,000. New York Penal Law 165.50 is a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in Second Degree - NY PL 165.52

The value of the stolen property exceeds $50,000. New York Penal Law 165.52 is a "C" felony punishable by up to fifteen years in state prison.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in First Degree - NY PL 165.54

The value of the stolen property exceeds $1,000,000. New York Penal Law 165.54 is a "B" felony punishable by up to twenty five years in state prison.

Although there are four legal presumptions associated with New York Penal Law 165.55, the following is one of the more relevant and common ones:

A person who knowingly possesses stolen property is presumed to possess it with intent to benefit himself or a person other than an owner thereof or to impede the recovery by an owner thereof. This presumption, taken further and with a slight twist, is known as "recent exclusive possession." A tremendous body of case law addresses this presumption that stands for the position that if an accused has exclusive possession of the property shortly after a theft crime is perpetrated and there are circumstances such as the inability to explain where the property came from, a negative inference may be drawn. That inference is that the accused knew that the property he or she possessed was stolen.

In addition to the above presumption(s), there are statutory provisions that establish certain "non defenses" to the crime of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. Pursuant to New York Penal Law 165.50:

In any prosecution for Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, it is no defense that:

1. The person who stole the property has not been convicted, apprehended or identified; or

2. The defendant stole or participated in the larceny of the property (the theft or taking); or

3. The larceny of the property did not occur in this state.

The above statutes and analysis are not substitutes for consulting with a New York criminal defense attorney as to the particular facts and application of the law in your case, but is a good place to start educating yourself on the crime of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property.

Crotty Saland LLP is criminal defense firm located in New York. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland LLP represents clients throughout the New York City region in white collar and theft related crimes and investigations.

For further information on Desk Appearance Tickets in New York or the varying statutes related to New York Grand Larceny, please follow the highlighted links.

Yet again, Manhattan prosecutors have come after another individual and his company for allegedly defrauding New York out of tax revenues. According to a press release by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Abdur Rashid Salaam and his companies, Safe & Secured Protective Services, Inc. and T.S.I. Special Services, Inc., have been indicted by a New York County Grand Jury for the crimes of Grand Larceny and Criminal Tax Fraud punishable by up to 25 years in state prison. It is alleged that Since 2003, "Salaam orchestrated the unlawful withholding of more than $1.2 million in collected sales taxes from New York State. More than $800,000 was stolen in the form of sales tax collected and kept by T.S.I. Special Services, Inc., and more than an additional $450,000 was stolen in the form of sales taxes collected and kept by Safe & Secured Protective Services, Inc."

This arrest and indictment is one of many recently prosecuted by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office including four separate restaurant owners who have either been indicted or have pleaded guilty in connection to alleged Grand Larceny and Criminal Tax Fraud in excess of $1.1 million dollars. Although some of these individuals and their companies are alleged by prosecutors to have stolen hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, prosecutors are not merely going after fraud in the "six figure" amount or greater. If anything, these investigations are a sign of things to come and a furtherance of former District Attorney Robert Morgenthau's dedication to prosecuting crimes in the streets as well as New York white collar crime in the "suites."

For further information on the degrees and levels of New York Grand Larceny crimes as well as Criminal Tax Fraud, please review the respective links.

Crotty Saland LLP has successfully represented individuals in Criminal Tax Fraud and Grand Larceny cases ranging from the tens of thousands of dollars to the multiple millions of dollars. While our past success and results is no guarantee of future results, the New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland LLP are dedicated to working through every criminal case to put our clients in the best possible position to protect their rights, liberty and future.

You were either arrested and put through the arrest process or you were issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) for shoplifting (New York Penal Law 155.25 or 165.40) after store security stopped you with a pair of jeans hidden away in your bag at Macey's or some makeup buried in your pocket at Bloomingdales. Although you have never been in trouble before, you now face the grim reality that you need to consult with a criminal defense attorney regarding your shoplifting arrest or Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) and the ramifications of the associated misdemeanor crimes.

Regardless of what you are alleged to have shoplifted (clothing, electronics, makeup, jewelry, etc.), the crimes you now face are misdemeanor offenses in New York as long as the value of the property stolen does not exceed $1000 (with some exceptions). That is right....whether the property was a $750 watch or a $5 pair of socks, the misdemeanor crimes of Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the 5th Degree (NY PL 165.40) are the two charges you will be facing and addressing with your New York criminal defense lawyer. Make no mistake. The "shoplifting misdemeanors" are punishable by up to one year in jail and are just as serious under the law as misdemeanor Assault, Criminal Mischief and even Forgery.

According to New York Penal Law Section 155.25, a person is guilty of Petit Larceny when he steals property.

According to New York Penal Law Section 165.04, a person is guilty of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree when he knowingly possesses stolen property, with intent to benefit himself or a person other than an owner thereof or to impeded the recovery of an owner thereof.

Both of the above-mentioned crimes are misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail. Although jail in New York City is rarely associated with these crimes for first time offenders, the bigger issue is avoiding the criminal record at all. In Manhattan, for example, a common disposition is a 240.40 Disorderly Conduct if the theft is nominal, the accused has no record, the property was recovered, no resisting or violence was involved and there are other mitigating factors. While not a crime and "only" a violation, a college student, professional in any capacity or anyone who needs certification would want to consult with a criminal defense attorney about whether or not he or she should accept such a disposition assuming it is offered. A very real concern with this violation of the penal law as a plea bargain is that while it technically seals, Disorderly Conducts have been known to "pop" on a background check. Therefore, a future employer or anyone conducting a background check may find out years down the road that you were arrested and charged with a theft crime. Whether that means you are working on your masters degree to become a teacher, you are employed in finance or you not sure what job / career you will have five years from now, you do not want a Disorderly Conduct impacting your future. When this arrest is uncovered the record will not reflect that you were "merely" arrested or issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) for stealing a $10 bracelet, but that you were charged with Petit Larceny which, as noted above, can be a theft of any property $1000 or less.

Ultimately, if you are charged with Petit Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property due to a shoplifting arrest or Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) in Manhattan, Brooklyn or anywhere else in New York City, consult with an experienced New York criminal defense attorney about whether you should accept a Disorderly Conduct if it is offered. Although each case must be assessed individually, it may be worth your time and effort fight the case to exonerate yourself completely or, in the alternative, seek to obtain an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD) whereby the case will be dismissed and sealed six months later.

For more information on Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) go to NewYorkDAT.Com.

For further information on shoplifting go to NYShopliftingLawyers.Com and search the blog for related materials.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors who served under Robert Morgenthau, Crotty Saland, LLP is a Manhattan based criminal defense firm representing clients throughout New York City and the region.

The felony crimes relating to Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in New York appear relatively straight forward whether the crimes is perpetrated by Embezzlement, Blackmail/Extortion or any other means. In general terms, if you steal property and the value of that property exceeds $1,000, $3,000, $50,000 or $1,000,000, then you may be charged and convicted of Grand Larceny in Fourth Degree (New York Penal Law 155.30(1), Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 155.35), Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 155.40(1)) or Grand Larceny in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 155.42) respectively. In the event you are alleged to have possessed stolen property with the values as mentioned, then the applicable offense are Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree (New York Penal Law 165.45(1), Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 165.50, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 165.52, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 165.54) respectively.

Each one of these statutes seems clear enough. For example, what if you steal or embezzle $7,500 in cash and you are caught with that money. Here, the value of the property obviously exceeds $3,000, but is less than $50,000. Prosecutors could therefore charge you with either or both crimes of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree (NY PL 165.50). Well, what if the theft or stolen property was a high definition 52 inch LCD television you bought for $6,000 four years ago, but you could get the same model now for $2950? What if the property does not have an easily ascertainable value such antique silverware that has been in the family for generations? Is it enough for the prosecution to merely state the value? If not, what is required to establish this value?

The first entry in this series will deal with measuring value of property to determine what, if any, statute is violated. A second entry will deal with the means by which the prosecution establishes that value whether it be from an expert, a store employee, an owner of the property, etc.

Continue reading "New York Grand Larceny & Felony Criminal Possession of Stolen Property: Establishing the Value of the Alleged Stolen Property Pursuant to NY PL 155.20 & Your Criminal Defense" »

Whether a vehicle is stolen or being driven without permission of the owner, one particular crime that may be charged in New York is Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Second and Third Degrees pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 165.06 and 165.05 respectively. While other crimes may have been perpetrated, such as Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in state prison, Unauthorized Used of a Vehicle, the "joyriding statute," is defined as follows:

NY PL 165.05(1) - Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree

A person is guilty of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree when knowing that he does not have the consent of the owner, he takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses a vehicle. A person who engages in any such conduct without the consent of the owner is presumed to know that he does not have such consent

Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree is a class "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

NY PL 165.06 - Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Second Degree

A person is guilty of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Second Degree when he commits the crime of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree as defined in subdivision one of section 165.05 of this article (above) and has been previously convicted of the crime of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree as defined in subdivision one of section 165.05 or Second Degree within the preceding ten years.

Unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree is a class E felony punishable by up to four years in prison.

Now that you have a basic understanding of the crime(s) of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle, I will address an interesting issue that recently played out before a New York Supreme Court Criminal Term.

Continue reading "New York Penal Law 165.05 & 165.06: Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle & Your NY Criminal Defense" »

Only days ago, I published an entry regarding the new Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Having served as a member of that bureau's predecessor, the Identity Theft Unit, during my seven years as a prosecutor under Robert Morgenthau, I commented on the necessity of such a unit despite my adversarial role as a New York criminal defense attorney. I don't think anyone could argue the significance of this expanded bureau as schemes involving Identity Theft and Computer Crime continue to flourish in New York and beyond.

Although the most recent arrests and allegations stem from the Queens County District Attorney's Office, the purpose of such a unit or bureau has once again been made clear. According to the Queens County District Attorney's Office, twelve individuals, including five employees at PC Richards and Sons, have been arrested and indicted in a fraudulent credit card "bust out" scheme. The 92 count indictment charges Raza Chaudry, Reema Chaudry, Tahir Chaudry, Azadar Chaudry, Zishan Chaudry, Shaheen Akhtar. Hemet Adnand, Mathew Alli, Mohammad Aslam, David Francis, Benzy Jonny and Sheikh "Naveed" Zaheer with crimes including Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Falsifying Business Records and Offering a False Instrument for Filing. Although they are not charged with the technical crime of Identity Theft, it is alleged that the "bust out" scheme involved stolen social security numbers. According to the Queens District Attorney's Office, a search warrant resulted in the recovery of "Pakistani passports belonging to several of the defendants and bearing multiple names and dates of birth, blank Social Security cards, Canadian and New York driver’s licenses and binders containing in excess of 300 credit cards."

Briefly, a "bust out" scheme involves transactions on a credit car where the credit card is "swiped" and a transaction is completed. The credit card company pays the merchant for the transaction or purchase. There are numerous variations going forward. For example, a "collusive merchant" may be aware that the card swiped is fraudulent. However, the merchant will get paid by the credit card company and claim he sold the items and he should not be at a loss because he did not know the card was fraudulent. Therefore, the merchant keeps the money from the alleged legitimate transaction without selling anything and shares the fee with fake buyer.

Another variation is alleged in this case. It appears that fraudulent checks were used to increase credit lines on credit cards. In an example of this, an individual takes out a credit card in another person's name without their permission, or in some circumstances pays that person to use their information. Sometimes legitimate transactions are made thereby raising the credit of the card over time. At some point a payment is made to the credit card, but with a bad check. Because of relaxed regulations, once the check hits the account and before there is a determination that the check is "good," the credit card company credits the account in the amount of the check. Therefore, there is a window of time before the check bounces that the credit card balance is falsely lowered. During this time, the fraudster can make further purchase. Once the credit card company realizes is, the items are gone. This cycle often continues with fake checks until a credit card with a limit of $5,000 is "busted out" in the amount of $25,000. Often times these schemes are not one or two credit cards, but a network of individuals with dozens or hundreds of credit cards. As a prosecutor in Manhattan, I led a similar investigation with the Secret Service into a particular scheme involving well north of 100 credit cards with "bust out" fraud in the multiple millions.

Continue reading "Queens Identity Theft & Credit Card "Bust Out" Scheme Results in Indictment of Five PC Richards Employees" »

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.

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.

In New York, a misdemeanor theft or larceny can easily be enhanced to a felony in certain circumstances. In fact, pursuant to New York Penal Law Section 155.30(5), Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, it is a felony punishable by up to four years in state prison if you perpetrate the crime commonly known as "Grand Larceny from the Person."

Pursuant to New York Penal Law Section 155.30(5), Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree:

A person is guilty of this Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree when he or she steals property and that property, regardless of its nature and value, is taken from the person of another.

To be clear, if you take a one dollar bill or a ten thousand dollar ring, and you take that property from another's person, you have likely committed the crime of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree. Although your actions may increase to Robbery if force or violence was used or to a higher level of Grand Larceny based on the value of the property, the mere taking of a property (for example, from a person's hand or pocket) automatically makes the crime a felony.

It is important to note that your theft need not be from another's hand, pocket, wrist, etc. In fact, prosecutors often charge this crime where a person's bag, backpack or purse is stolen even if the victim is not wearing that purse. Pursuant to People v. Haynes, 91 N.Y.2d 966 (1998), if a person is touching a bag, purse or backpack and a defendant takes that property, then this crime has likely been committed. A little vague, a better way to look at this hypothetical is that if a person is sitting on the strap of their bag or leaning against it as it is hanging over the chair, a defendant can be charged with this crime if they take the bag away as the strap is pulled from underneath or on top of the victim. It is important to note that the taking need not be violent or forceful. In fact, the vicimt might not know of the theft as the item is pulled away.

Obviously, whether or not one has committed the crime of Grand Larceny in the 4th Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.30(5) hinges on the circumstances of the case. While not a substitute for legal analysis on a specific set of facts, the above description should give you a general understanding of the law.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a New York based criminal defense firm founded by former Manhattan prosecutors.

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" »

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's Office issued a press release involving the arrest and indictment of Adeniyi Adeyemi, a computer technician employed by the Bank of New York Melon. The 138 count Identity Theft and Grand Larceny indictment accuses the defendant of stealing the identities of 150 bank employees while perpetrating a $1.1 million dollar fraud. The fraud and thefts were alleged to have transpired from 2001 through 2009.

It is alleged that the victims of these crimes were many co-workers of Mr. Adeyemi who worked in the information technology group of Bank of New York Melon. According to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Mr. Adeyemi "opened over 30 bank and brokerage accounts in their identities with several financial institutions, including E*Trade, Fidelity, Citi, Wachovia, and Washington Mutual. These accounts served as dummy accounts for the purpose of receiving stolen funds. Mr. Adeyemi then stole money from the bank accounts of charities and non-profit organizations and funneled it into the dummy accounts, later withdrawing the stolen funds or transferring them to a second layer of dummy accounts."

Much of the money that Mr. Adeyemi is alleged to have stolen was used to purchase goods and ship them to Nigeria as well as to cover his personal expenses such as rent and credit card bills. Moreover, it is alleged that Mr. Adeyemi purchased $100,000 in USPS money orders after transferring funds through the fraudulent accounts.

According to the District Attorney's Office, the police executed a search warrant at Mr. Adeyemi's apartment on April 30, 2009. There, "investigators found dozens of Bank of New York employees’ credit reports on his computer, along with many other documents containing personal identifying information of more than 150 Bank of New York employees. In a storage locker Mr. Adeyemi rented, the investigative team found notebooks containing hundreds of names, social security numbers, account numbers, and other personal data, along with numerous credit cards in Bank of New York employees’ names. Investigators also recovered $30,000 in cash from Mr. Adeyemi’s apartment. Mr. Adeyemi was arrested in the course of the search warrant execution, and has remained in custody since.

The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Adeyemi on one count of Grand Larceny in the First Degree (punishable by up to 8 and 1/3 to 25 years in prison), 138 counts of counts of Identity Theft in the First Degree (punishable by up to 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in prison), one count of Money Laundering in the First Degree (punishable by up to 8 and 1/3 to 25 years in prison), one count of Computer Tampering in the First Degree (punishable by up to 5 to 15 years in prison), two counts of Money Laundering in the Second Degree (punishable by up to 5 to 15 years in prison), three counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (punishable by up to 5 to 15 years in prison), two counts of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in prison), and one count of Unlawful Possession of Personal Identification Information in the Second Degree (punishable by up to 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in prison).

Certainly, it is not favorable to the defendant that a search warrant executed at his home revealed an abundance of personal information belonging to employees of the Bank of New York Melon. Moreover, the defendant's IP address was likely tracked to a particular provider and then ultimately to his account (or an account used by him.) Certainly, others could have had access to his account and computer. Additionally, there are legal arguments to be made and potential challenges to the search warrant. However, regardless of the approach to this case, Mr. Adeyemi has a long road ahead of him and needs to decide the best defense to the accusations and implement that defense immediately.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a white collar criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Jeremy Saland, has extensive experience prosecuting and defending Identity Theft crimes having served in the Identity Theft Unit and the Major Case Section when the unit was founded by Robert Morgenthau.

Follow us on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY

With the recent Extortion attempt of David Letterman by Robert "Joe" Halderman fresh in our minds, now would be a good time to share with my readers what constitutes Extortion under New York State law. As a New York criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor who supervised the investigation and prosecution of multiple individuals charged with the Extortion of an NBA All Star, I am intimately familiar with Extortion as it is defined under New York Penal Law section 155.05(2)(e) and under Grand Larceny in the Fourth and Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 155.30(6) and 155.40(2) respectively.

Before proceeding with an analysis of the Extortion statute, it is important to note that Extortion is specifically defined under section 155.05(2)(e) of the New York Penal Law. Like larceny by trick, false promise and common law larceny, Extortion is a means by which a larceny is perpetrated. According to NY Penal Law 155.05(2):

A person obtains property by Extortion when he compels or induces another person to deliver such property to himself or to a third person by means of instilling in him a fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another will:

(i) Cause physical injury to some person in the future; or

(ii) Cause damage to property; or

(iii) Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or

(iv) Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be instituted against him; or

(v) Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule; or

(vi) Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action injurious to some person`s business; except that such a threat shall not be deemed Extortion when the property is demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or

(vii) Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another`s legal claim or defense; or

(viii) Use or abuse his position as a public servant by performing some act within or related to his official duties, or by failing or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect some person adversely; or

(ix) Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with respect to his health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

Again, because Extortion pursuant to NY Penal Law 155.05(2)(e) is a means by which a larceny takes place, the value of the property taken or attempted to be taken will determine the level of the offense. For example, if the value of the property is extorted is $10,000.00, then the applicable larceny offense would be Grand Larceny in the 3rd Degree, NY Penal Law section 155.35, because the value of the property exceeds $3,000.00, but is less than $50,000.00.

More definitions and analysis after the jump...

Continue reading "Extortion and Grand Larceny in New York: Your Criminal Defense & an Analysis of NY Penal Law 155.05(2)(e), 155.30(6) and 155.40(2)" »

A year long Westchester County investigation ended in the arrest of 21 people for their alleged involvement in the sale and transportation of untaxed cigarettes. It is alleged that during the course of the investigation, the defendants purchased $16 million worth of unstamped cigarettes from undercover officers. It is further alleged that a confidential informant assisted in targeting numerous individuals whose total sales and purchases exceeded nine million unstamped cigarettes. These illegal transactions equated to a New York State cigarette excise tax stamp fraud of approximately $21 million.

According to the Westchester County District Attorney's Office:

New York State imposes an excise tax on cigarettes in the amount of $2.75 per pack of twenty cigarettes. Additionally, New York City is permitted to impose an additional $1.50 per pack, bringing the total combined tax rate to $4.25.New York State collects the cigarette tax through the sale of tax stamps, which are sold to licensed New York State stamping agents. An agent must affix the stamps to packages of cigarettes in order for those packages to be sold in New York State. The stamping agent can then sell the cigarettes to wholesale or retail businesses.To circumvent the excise taxes, and earn more profit on cigarette sales, some cigarette dealers illegally purchase unstamped cigarettes from unauthorized sources.

The defendants - Ali M. Abadi, Ibrahim A. Ahmad, Mohamed Ahmed, Omar Nagib Ali, Ibrahim Althnaibat, Jamil H. Alzokari, Mohamed A. Benkhiyar, Ahmad Aldabesheh, Yin Sin Wu, Obrero Barrio, Andre Ford, Ronald Everett, Przaemyslw S. Holynski, Alou Keita, Mohamed Lemine Ould Sidi, Henry Polanco, Abdo Quhshi, Norman A. Saif, Mohamed O. Salick, John Taveras and Ri Q. Wu are facing significant prison with a mandatory minimum term of incarceration. The offenses are as follows:

Criminal Tax Fraud in the First Degree, a B felony punishable by a minimum of 1 to 3 years and a maximum of 8 and 1/3 to 25 years. Criminal Tax Fraud in the Second Degree is a C felony punishable by no incarceration and up to 15 years. Criminal Tax Fraud in the Third Degree is a D felony punishable by no incarceration and up to 7 years. The dollar amount associated with these offenses closely tracks, but not precisely, the Grand Larceny statutes in relation to monetary loss. For example, like Grand Larceny in the First and Second Degrees, Criminal Tax Fraud in the First and Second Degrees requires, among other things, a fraud of $1 million and $50,000 respectively.

Time will tell what happens with these defendants and whether they put forth their best defense. Whatever they determine their strongest defense might by, they should implement that plan before they compound their already precarious situation.

Whether you are arrested and charged with Petit Larceny (NY Penal Law 155.25) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (NY Penal Law 165.40) for shoplifting, you need to consult with a New York criminal defense attorney about People v. Lai Lee. It does not matter if you have been issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) or you have already been arraigned by a judge. Moreover, it does not matter where in New York City your case is pending from Manhattan Criminal Court at 100 Centre Street to Brooklyn Criminal Court at 120 Schermerhorn Street. What matters is that you put yourself in the best position possible to protect your rights and integrity by consulting with an experienced criminal defense lawyer about your case and whether certain legal decisions, such as ruling in People v. Lai Lee, may be used in your defense.

In a recent decision dated July 2, 2009, a Manhattan Criminal Court judge dismissed the shoplifting, Petit Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property charges that the defendant faced. The complaint alleged that a store investigator observed the defendant remove a handbag, tights and other clothing by "placing said items inside the defendant's bag." The defendant then walked past multiple open registers and moved to another floor of the store without paying for the items. The defendant was stopped and investigator recovered just under $1000 worth of clothing from the defendant's handbag.

The defendant argued that a description of the defendant's handbag was necessary to establish concealment. Moreover, the defendant asserted that moving floors and around the store "...fail[ed] to support that she exercised dominion and control wholly inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner, inasmuch as, the alleged facts fail to establish larcenous conduct supporting the allegation that she did not intend to pay for the items, such as her walking towards the exit or other conduct inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner."

Further analysis after the jump...

Continue reading "NY Criminal Defense Law Update: New Court Decision May Help Those Arrested for Shoplifting (Petit Larceny - 155.25) in New York City" »

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

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

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

You have just been arrested in New York City after driving in a car that is stolen. Maybe you "borrowed" it for a little too long and you didn't return it. It could be that a friend gave you the keys and you thought it was his or you were just going for a "joy ride." Another possibility is that it was a rental car you failed to return timely. Regardless, you frantically call your criminal defense attorney and you want to know what possible charges you face.The answer is simple...Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property and Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle are the likely charges you would face if it is alleged that you stole or used a vehicle without permission or authority.

Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, PL 155.30, makes it a felony to steal property when, pursuant to subsection (8) the value of that property exceeds $100 and the property is a motor vehicle other than a motorcycle. That's right. If you steal a car and it is worth more than $100, then you are looking at an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in state prison. It is important to note that you can still be charged with a more serious level of Grand Larceny punishable by significantly more prison if the car is equal to or exceeds $3,000 or $50,000.

Criminal Possession of Stolen Property almost mimics the Grand Larceny statute. You are guilty of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the 4th Degree when you knowingly possess stolen property, with the intent to benefit yourself or another person other than the owner or to impede the recovery by the owner and, pursuant to subsection (5) the value of the property exceeds $100 and the property is a motor vehicle other than a motorcycle. Like Grand Larceny, you can still be charged with more serious levels of this offense if the value of the vehicle is equal to or exceeds the thresholds of of $3,000 or $50,000.

Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle ranges from a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail to a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison. Generally, you are guilty of this offense if you know that you do not have the permission of the owner of a vehicle, you ride in, possess or operate the vehicle. Additionally, if you have permission, but do not return the vehicle at the specified time you may also be guilty of this crime. This offense is punished more severely as a felony if you have previously been convicted of the crime in the previous ten years or you commit this crime while also committing certain other felonies.

Whatever situation you or a loved one is in, contact the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP so that you can start fighting to make sure your rights, liberty and integrity are preserved.

A bunch of people are in need of New York criminal defense attorneys...immediately. The New York Attorney General's Office announced the arrest of twelve people allegedly involved in a Bronx based construction equipment and luxury car theft ring. The defendants are charged with Enterprise Corruption, Forgery, Grand Larceny, Conspiracy and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. Luis Torres Gonzalez (a.k.a. “Sanki”), Reynaldo Estrella (a.k.a. “Ray”), Ernie Muriel (a.k.a. “Ivan”), Alfonso Tejada, Nestali Garcia Rosa (a.k.a. “Junior”), Noel S. Gonzalez (a.k.a. “Joaquin”), Jose L. Sanchez, Higinio M. Mercedes (a.k.a. “Biembo”), Kenneth Estrella (a.k.a. “Kenny”), Alton Young (a.k.a “Fat Ray”) and Jean Carlos Almontes are among the men who were targeted in "Operation Tag Sale." According to the Attorney General's website, these men had an organization that worked together to steal over fifty vehicles from construction sites, public streets and garages. The defendants have been charged in a 100 count indictment and face up to twenty five years in state prison if convicted on the top charge.

"Some people try to smuggle jewels out of the country. These individuals tried to sneak off with Caterpillars and Hummers. What they lacked in finesse they tried to compensate with audacity. But it made no difference. They met with the same end - arrest - thanks to the outstanding work of NYPD auto crime detectives and their partners in the Attorney General’s Organized Crime Task Force,” said Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.

According to the Attorney General's Office, the defendants were caught through the assistance of wiretaps and surveillance. It is alleged that their activities were so brazen as to drive a Caterpillar excavator right off of a construction site and down the thruway. Once this and other vehicles were stolen, their VIN numbers were forged and "washed."

As a former prosecutor with the Manhattan District Attorney's Office I am keenly aware how much time and effort prosecutors and the police put into long term investigations such as this. As a criminal defense attorney I am equally familiar with the time and effort it will take to zealously advocate and fight to maintain these defendants' liberty and rights. Both sides have a long road ahead of them.

Your criminal defense attorney or lawyer has heard the charges before...Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25)...Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (NY PL 165.40)...Grand Larceny (NY PL 155.30)...Yes, even Burglary (NY PL 140.20). Unfortunately, you where caught shoplifting a sweater from Bloomingdales in Manhattan or pair of shoes from Macys in Brooklyn. Security stops you on the way out and confiscates the property from you. You tell them you will never do it again if they let you go (oops...you may have just unwittingly made an admission!!!). The next thing you know you are given a notice telling you your right to be in that particular store is revoked and that there is a civil fine you must pay. If that wasn't enough, the police arrive and escort you, in handcuffs, to the resort and spa known as "central booking." If you are fortunate, the police issue you a Desk Appearance Ticket (D.A.T. / DAT).

"Simple" shoplifting has enormous and life altering consequences. Aside from the embarrassment, shame and potential loss of of your job if your employer finds out, the charges you may face are numerous. Even if you plea to a lesser Disorderly Conduct (a violation and not a crime), a background check down the road may reveal your shoplifting arrest.

In general, when you take property (here, the sweater or shoes) that do not belong to you, you may be guilty of Petit Larceny. In the event that the value of the property exceeds one thousand dollars, three thousand dollars or fifty thousand, then you may be guilty of Grand Larceny in the fourth, third and second degree respectively. Petit Larceny is punishable by up to one year in jail and Grand Larceny in the fourth through second degrees is punishable by up to four, seven, and fifteen years respectively.

Another potential crime is Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. The easiest way to understand this offense is to know that if you take property and you keep it knowing that you do not have permission to do so and you have no intention of returning it, then you may be guilt of this crime. While this crime is different than Petit and Grand Larceny, they are somewhat interchangeable in that the sentences for the misdemeanor and felony versions follow the same guidelines as the larceny offenses as indicated above.

Another potential charge, although less common, is Burglary. If you are advised that your right to enter a particular store has been revoked (it should be in writing) and you return and attempt to steal again, you may be committing a Burglary. Moreover, in the event that you enter an area of a store that is off limits and that is not open to the public and you attempt or complete a crime you also may be charged with Burglary. This offense is a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

If you are charged with one or more of these crimes in relation to a shoplifting allegation, you should be ready to sit down with your criminal defense attorney and answer a few questions so that a plan of attack can be formulated and implemented for you. For example, did you bypass the cash registers when you were stopped or were you still in the store? Did you place multiple items in your bag or were you holding them? Did you have a "booster" bag or was this merely a mistake and you intended to pay? Was the area that was off limits clearly marked? Whatever your circumstances, you must understand that even avoiding a conviction for Petit Larceny can still come back to "haunt" you years down the road when you graduate college, apply for a new job or attempt to get clearance or state / federal certification.

Crotty Saland, LLP is a criminal defense firm representing clients in theft related matters throughout the metropolitan New York region. Former Manhattan prosecutors, the attorneys at Crotty Saland, LLP have extensive experience handling larceny crimes as both assistant district attorneys and criminal defense lawyers.

Your NY criminal defense lawyer successfully challenged the Burglary charge pending against you in Brooklyn or Manhattan Supreme Court, but you still face other charges relating to the offense. One of those charges is Possession of Burglar's Tools, Penal Law Section 140.35. Although not a felony, the crime is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

According to Penal Law Section 140.35, a person is guilty of Possession of Burglar's Tools when "he possesses any tool, instrument or other article adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating offenses involving forcible entry into premises, or offenses involving larceny by a physical taking, or offenses involving theft of services...under circumstances evincing and intent to use or knowledge that some person intends to to use the same in the commission of an offense of such character."

Unfortunately, the Penal Law definition is not very helpful in ascertaining what constitutes Burglar's Tools. A skilled criminal defense attorney, on the other hand, can explain that it is not merely the object that you have, but the statute requires that you also have the intent to use that particular instrument to commit a theft related offense. Mere possession may not be enough.

In the past, courts have found that Burglar's Tools can run the gamut of objects from tinfoil lined bags used avoid sensors for shoplifting to metal hangers used to break into cars. In fact, toothpicks and other items have been deemed Burglar's Tools under the circumstances where the intent to use them in that capacity has been established. See People v. Gastiaburo, 23 A.D.2d 891 (2d Dept. 1965).

Whatever object you possess, if you are charged with Possession of Burglar's Tools you need an experienced criminal defense attorney to force the prosecution to their burden of proof and to challenge whether the object you have is in fact such a tool. As a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Jeremy Saland is exactly the type of attorney who can protect your rights and fight for your freedom.

You had a few too many drinks and refused to pay your bill at the diner or late night restaurant in Manhattan. You jumped a turnstile in Brooklyn because you though nobody was looking. Maybe you refused to pay your cab driver because he is driving you from NY to the Bronx to Queens and back to NY when you only needed to go to midtown. Believe it or not, your actions may land you either in jail or with a desk appearance ticket (DAT) for the misdemeanor crime of Theft of Services.

An experienced criminal defense attorney can tell you that things that seem to be merely a misunderstanding or a bone-headed move often result in criminal actions. Theft of Services, punishable by up to one year and jail, is one of those offenses. Although there are often legitimate and solid defenses to this crime that need to be explored, Theft of Services generally occurs where you obtain a service and do not pay for that service.

While Theft of Services is not a crime where the average person is likely to do any "time," it is important to note that a skilled criminal defense attorney should be retained to make sure you do not become the exception. For example, a criminal defense attorney should review the complaint against you and make sure there is certain language. Specifically, there must be language specifying that you did not have "permission or authority" to obtain the service without payment. Failure to allege this in a complaint may result in your criminal defense attorney successfully arguing for dismissal. There is no reason to accept even a day of community service and a slap on the wrist if the case can be defeated on legal grounds.

Even assuming that a disposition can be reached, individuals who have certifications or go through background checks such as investment bankers, physicians, and teachers, may be concerned about any wrongdoing on their record regardless of how small it is. Therefore, it is important that you don't let this misunderstanding or bone-headed move cause you any more problems and you retain criminal defense counsel to aggressively fight to prevent this from blemishing your clean record in anyway.

You and your partner are co-owners of certain assets in a clothing store in Manhattan or a antiques store in Brooklyn. You take some of the businesses assets without informing your partner or getting his permission. The question that arises is can you be found guilty of larceny (grand or petit) for "stealing" from that partner where you both have interests in that property?

An experienced New York criminal defense attorney should be able to give you both the answer and the reason. The short answer is that you should not be found guilty or prosecuted because your partner is not an "owner" under the law.

Pursuant to Penal Law section 155.00(5), "[w]hen property is taken , obtained, or withheld by another person, an "owner" thereof means any person who has a right to possession thereof superior to that of the taker, obtainer, or withholder." Furthermore, a "joint of common owner of property shall not be deemed to have a right of possession thereto superior to that or any other joint or common owner thereof." If you are equal partners you have equal rights.

Fortifying the position that a larceny can't be prosecuted under the circumstances above is found in People v. Zinke, 76 NY2d and numerous other cases. It is well settled and black letter law that if you are a partner, joint owner, or common owner of certain assets, you cannot be prosecuted for a larceny offense. It is important to note, however, that you may be charged with other crimes and, therefore, you should find skilled defense counsel to aggressively defend you against any allegation or crime.

A person steals $5000 from a victim in Manhattan, $2000 from a victim in Brooklyn and $45,000 from a victim in White Plains. Jurisdictional issues aside, can each of these crimes be aggregated so that prosecution can charge this person with one count of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (theft of $50,000 or over) or must there be three separate and lesser counts of Grand Larceny?

The general rule applied in these circumstances is that if there is a scheme whereby a person steals from the same victim or location, then there can be an aggregation. However, the above scenario may be different because the victims and locations are different.

While the answer is not always clear, what is clear is that there must be evidence of a separate intent for each separate and distinct theft. See People v. Ramos. Furthermore, a prosecutor in the Grand Jury or a judge at trial must instruct the jury that even though there were thefts on multiple dates, the jury must find a "single intent" despite those different dates. See People v. Tighe.

While the above scenario appears complicated, an experienced criminal defense attorney should be prepared to challenge the criminal complaint or indictment. That is why before you retain counsel to represent you in a complicated criminal matter you should seek out a criminal defense attorney with practical training and experience necessary to guide you through this process.

Whether you are in Manhattan, White Plains or Brooklyn, there is no statute titled “Extortion” in New York. Instead, Extortion is a “type” of Grand Larceny, but just a Grand Larceny none the less. In other words, an individual charged with this crime would be charged on an indictment which read Grand Larceny under the theory of Extortion.

Under Penal Law Section 155.05, larceny occurs when a person with intent to deprive another of property or appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds such property from an owner. Larceny can be conducted through numerous means including, trick, false promise, acquiring lost property, and yes, extortion.

Extortion is defined, in part, as when a person induces or compels another to deliver property to himself or a third person be means of instilling in him fear that, if the property is not so delivered, the actor or another will cause physical injury to some person in the future, cause damage to property, engage in conduct constituting another crime, accuse some person of a crime, expose a secret, or conduct other specified activities.

Although Extortion can be charged as a Grand Larceny solely on the value of the property received (an “E” felony punishable by up to 4 years in state prison through a “B” felony punishable by up to 25 years in state prison), there are two specific provisions in the New York State Penal Law that deal with this crime. Penal Law section 155.30, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree and Penal Law Section 155.40, Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, both address Grand Larceny by Extortion. The degrees of Grand Larceny in the statute are not exclusive of one another and can be charged in the same indictment under different theories.

There are certain requirements that an indictment alleging extortion must have in order to stand up against a motion to dismiss regardless of how strong the facts are. As a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office under Robert Morgenthau I personally supervised the multi-million dollar extortion attempt of NBA basketball star Carmelo Anthony and I am well versed in the applicable law and requirements associated with this crime – and the way to defeat an indictment if applicable. If you or a loved one is charged with Grand Larceny under the theory of Extortion, you owe to yourself to seek out experienced counsel who can vigorously defend your rights.

For further information regarding Extortion and the various sections of the Penal Law, please read our most recent article.