New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

January 9, 2010

Loaded Firearm Recovered Outside Vehicle: NY Supreme Court Finds that Possession of Firearm “Car Presumption” (NY PL 265.15) Still Applies

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

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

January 6, 2010

Escape from New York: Man Slips Chain Gang in Staten Island While ABC Cameras Roll

by Jeremy Saland

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

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

January 4, 2010

The Tireless Pursuit of Justice: Robert Morgenthau

by Jeremy Saland

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

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

December 31, 2009

Exercising Your Miranda Rights in New York: Why it is Important to Consider Consulting with Your Criminal Defense Attorney Before Speaking to the Police

by Jeremy Saland

As a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorneys Office and as a criminal defense attorney in New York City, I could probably write a book on the stupid things people say when confronted by the police. Maybe they think they are going to talk themselves out of trouble or maybe they are just nervous, but the end result is often the same….they get themselves in deeper water and often end up being placed under arrest. A defendant in Queens County charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (Penal Law 265.03(1) and 265.03(3)), learned this lesson the hard way.

In People v. Virgilio Rodriguez, 2632/08, decided June 23, 2009, police responded to “shots fired.” When they arrived at the location the officers asked what happened and some individuals pointed to the defendant and stated that the officers should ask him. Upon asking the defendant what happened the defendant admitted that he shot off his gun and then voluntarily brought the officers to his office a few feet away and retrieved his gun from the desk drawer. The police placed the defendant under arrest and brought him to the precinct and ultimately central booking. During this time, the family obtained a criminal defense attorney for the defendant and the attorney filed a notice with the court (a letter indicating that the defendant has counsel). Despite this, the police questioned the defendant on video. Ultimately, the defendant’s attorney challenged both the statement at the scene as well as the video statement. Unfortunately for the defendant, the court ruled that his statement was admissible as it was made at the scene voluntarily and while the police where investigating. In a close to literal sense, the defendant shot himself in his foot for opening his mouth at the scene.

December 28, 2009

Brooklyn Travel Agent Allegedly Pockets $26,000 After Pocketing Money Instead of Booking Clients’ Reservations

by Jeremy Saland

According to the Brooklyn (Kings County) District Attorney’s Office, a Brooklyn, New York Grand Jury indicted Peter Galin on 27 counts of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, Scheme To Defraud in the First Degree and Petit Larceny. Galin, a travel agent and proprietor of TravelCenterOnline.Com, is alleged to have defrauded 12 clients by taking their money and using it for his personal use as opposed to booking and arranging for their travel and vacations. It is alleged that clients paid Mr. Galin between $400 and $5,500 for travel plans that were never made. Despite being given receipts for his services, Mr. Galin’s clients allegedly received nothing at all. One such client arrived at the airport on the scheduled day of departure to learn that no airline reservations had been made.

If convicted at trial, Mr. Galin faces no mandatory minimum sentence, but up to 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in state prison on the top charges.

December 24, 2009

Leandra’s Law Is Official: New York VTL 1192.2-a(b) / VTL 1192(2a)(b) Makes it a Felony to Drive Drunk (DWI / DUI) with a Child 15 Years Old or Younger

by Jeremy Saland

Make no mistake. New York DWI / DUI laws have just gotten significantly harsher. In fact, pursuant to New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) section 1192.2-a(b) / 1192(2a)(b), otherwise know as Leandra’s Law, a misdemeanor Driving While Intoxicated is “bumped up” to a felony offense if you perpetrate the “drunk driving” crimes of VTL 1192.2, VTL 1192.3, VTL 1192.4 or VTL 1192.4(a) and a child 15 years old or younger is in that vehicle.

More specifically, one can be charged with felony DWI / DUI pursuant to VTL 1192.2-a(b) / VTL 1192(2a)(b) when that person either has a BAC of .08 or greater, is intoxicated due to drug or alcohol ingestion or is “common law” DWI. Although often more difficult to prove due to the lack of scientific evidence, “common law” DWI refers to cases where an individual does not give a reading or sample of breath, urine or blood, but the police articulate the individual’s intoxication due to certain characteristics such as unsteadiness on one’s feet, slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, and watery-blood shot eyes, etc.

December 23, 2009

NYU Administrator Arrested & Indicted for Grand Larceny and Allegedly “Scavenging” Discarded Receipts to Obtain $400,000 in Fraudulent Reimbursements

by Jeremy Saland

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has announced the arrest and indictment of John Runowicz, a University administrator for an alleged ongoing theft in the neighborhood of $400,000. According to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, Mr. Runowicz was indicted by a Grand Jury for the crimes of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class C felony and six counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a class E felony. If convicted, Mr. Runowicz faces up to 5 to 15 years and up to 1?? to 4 years in state prison on the respective charges.

As administrator for the University’s chemistry department, Mr. Runowicz oversaw and managed the budget and handled the financial matters for that department. In this capacity, prosecutors alleged that Mr. Runowicz “caused thousands of fraudulent requests for petty cash reimbursement to be submitted to the university Bursar’s Office. [Mr.] Runowicz scavenged discarded cash register receipts from a local liquor store, attached them to reimbursement request forms, and falsely claimed that the expenses were for chemistry department supply purchases and other functions. None of those receipts reflected legitimate business expenses. Carrying on his scheme for over five years, [Mr.] Runowicz fraudulently submitted over 13,000 receipts from the liquor store and stole $409,000.

December 20, 2009

When a Simple Petit Larceny or Petty Theft Becomes a Felony Grand Larceny in New York: Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree – NY Penal Law 155.30(5)

by Jeremy Saland

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:

December 17, 2009

Top Results: White Collar Criminal Defense Firm Gets Client “Slap on the Wrist” After Alleged Forgery and Grand Larceny of Approximately $17,500

by Jeremy Saland

Saland Law PC, is pleased to announce that another client has benefited from our experience, knowledge and advocacy. Our client, a movie “middle man” who procured funding for multi-million dollar projects, met with prosecutors after being contacted about a disgruntled client. Prior to retaining Saland Law PC, and without any legal representation, our client met with law enforcement officials and made statements that could be construed as admissions relating to Grand Larceny and Forgery crimes. More specifically, prosecutors accused our client of stealing, through false pretenses, approximately $17,500. Moreover, prosecutors alleged that our client created and displayed fraudulent bank documents and contracts that were used to “fool” the movie companies that utilized his services.

After months of legal wrangling our client’s case is over. Through our diligence, our client avoided the embarrassment of being arrested at his home or place of business. On the same day we had our client voluntarily turn himself in, prosecutors arranged to have him see the judge and have his charges dropped down from felony Grand Larceny and Forgery to lesser misdemeanor offenses. At his arraignment, only a few hours after his voluntary surrender, our client pleaded to one count of Petit Larceny, a misdemeanor of pursuant to NY Penal Law section 155.25 (otherwise known as the “shoplifting statute”). Moreover, the judge sentenced him at that time to a conditional discharge. This plea not only saved our client from the humiliation of any felony, but our client avoided jail (he was facing up to seven years in state prison), probation and community service while finishing his case only hours after he voluntarily turned himself into detectives.

December 15, 2009

New York Orders of Protection (Restraining Orders) & Search Warrants: Standing to Challenge Search of Your Home May be Diminished

by Jeremy Saland

There is little doubt that if your home is the target of a search warrant in New York, you, as the homeowner or tenant who resides there, would have the standing or ability to challenge a search warrant executed at that premises. However, one factor that may change the dynamic of this equation is where you (again, as the homeowner who resides there or tenant who lives there) are prevented from temporarily entering or living in the premises due to an order of protection or restraining order. The obvious question then becomes, what rights or standing, if any, do you have to challenge a search of that premises pursuant to a search warrant where there is an existing order of protection keeping your from that location?

Regardless of the fruits of that search, i.e, whether the police find drugs, guns, etc, decisions have not been favorable to those who are barred from a particular premises even if they are the owners. In fact, in a recent decision from October 20, 2009 in Kings County (Brooklyn) Supreme Court, a judge found that “the defendant has no standing to challenge the validity of the search warrant since the court issued a full Order of Protection for the victim and her son.” People v. Dorcinvil