New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

December 23, 2009

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

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

December 11, 2009

Unlawful Imprisonment in the First (NY Penal Law 135.10) & Second (NY Penal Law 135.05)Degrees: A New York Criminal Defense Overview

by Jeremy Saland

It often takes the trained criminal eye of a New York criminal defense attorney or lawyer to locate and assess the nuances between similar statutes. Deciphering the language between similar statutes could mean the difference between facing a misdemeanor or a violent felony. One example of this found in statutes relating to Kidnapping and Unlawful Imprisonment. Although each of these statutes have their own unique language, at a basic level the difference between Kidnapping (NY Penal Law 135.20 and 125.25) and Unlawful Imprisonment (NY Penal Law 135.05 and 135.10) hinges on two key words defined by statute and interpreted by case law. Those key words are “restrain” and “abduct.” Today’s entry will address the general definitions applicable to Kidnapping and Unlawful Imprisonment. Additionally, I will give an overview of the crimes of Unlawful Imprisonment in the First and Second Degrees. At a later date I will analyze the Kidnapping statute under New York State law.

､ 135.00 Unlawful Imprisonment, Kidnapping and Custodial Interference; definitions of terms

December 10, 2009

No Drink and Straight to the Clink: Two Arrested After Alleged Bribery of New York State Liquor Authority Official

by Jeremy Saland

A drink sounds a lot better than the “clink,” right about now for two people charged with Bribery in the Third Degree, a class D felony, and Attempted Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a class E felony. It is alleged that Annie Guerrero and Maria Elena Nunez got caught up in a fraudulent scheme nearly a year ago, but only landed themselves in court for the first time today.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, the alleged partners in crime were also foes:

December 7, 2009

NY Drug / Narcotic / Controlled Substance / Marijuana / Marihuana Possession Presumptions: New York Penal Law Sections 220.25(1) & 220.25(2)

by Jeremy Saland

Although the Rockefeller Drug Laws have certainly eased over the years, New York Criminal defense attorneys and their clients must have a working knowledge as to the law involving legal presumptions and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance. While often times the police allegedly observe a sale or the actual possession, New York’s Penal Law permits certain presumptions that the accused possessed the drugs in question. These presumptions are narrowly construed, but may be applicable in your case depending on the facts and circumstances. Whether the drug is cocaine, heroin or crack, the following presumptions apply:

220.25 Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance; Presumption:

December 3, 2009

Issuing a False Financial Statement (NY Penal Law 175.45): A New York Criminal Defense Overview

by Jeremy Saland

Issuing a False Financial Statement, pursuant to New York Penal Law 175.45, is certainly not the most severe crime amongst its brethren in the arena of white collar crimes, but one that has serious ramifications beyond the criminal context. First of all, this crime is often associated with or is a part of a larger scheme. Therefore, you may not merely find yourself being investigated for or charged with Issuing a False Financial Statement, pursuant to New York Penal Law 175.45. Other crimes may be lingering right around the corner. However, before addressing those other crimes, let me present the statute of Issuing a False Financial Statement so you have a general understanding of the law.

Issuing a False Financial Statement New York Penal Law 175.45:

December 1, 2009

A Reverse Subsidized Rent: Manhattan Building Manager Indicted for $1.3 Million Theft

by Jeremy Saland

A Manhattan building manager has managed to get himself into hot water with the Manhattan District Attorneys Office. According to Robert Morgenthau’s prosecutors, Mark Modano, of Mark Modano LLC, was arrest and indicted in connection to an alleged five year fraud beginning in 2003 and ending in 2008. It is alleged that during this period Mr. Modano siphoned $1.3 million from clients for his own personal use.

Charged with three counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY PL 155.40), a class C felony, three counts of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35), a class D felony and one count of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (NY PL 190.65), a class E felony, Mr. Modano faces up to 15, 7 and 4 years respectively if convicted.

November 28, 2009

New York’s “Wholly Inconsistent” Shoplifting Standard: NY Case Law & Applicability to Your Criminal Defense

by Jeremy Saland

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.”