New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

June 14, 2009

NY Criminal Defense and Presumptions: Criminal Possession of a Weapon – Guns, Pistols and Firearms

With the recent media attention over the gun possession charge against Plaxico Burress (he is back in Manhattan criminal court this coming week, but the matter will be adjourned until September because there is no deal in place), New York criminal defense attorneys, such as the former Manhattan prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers at Saland Law PC, are keeping an eye on how the charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon resolves itself in this case. In fact, Jeremy Saland, one of the founding partners who served for seven years under Robert Morgenthau, has been immersed in the case since its inception as a legal analyst on gun crimes as it relates to Mr. Burress for CNNSI.Com, the New Jesey Star-Ledger, and the AM NY. While Saland Law PC has been extremely successful in representing individuals charged with carrying a loaded firearm, the best defense is knowing the law in New York State so that you do not put yourself in a situation where you may violate the law. Therefore, the subject of this entry is going to deal with certain legal presumptions that apply to gun possession that are found in the New York Penal Code.

Pursuant to Penal Law 265.15 there are certain legal presumptions that apply to guns in connection with one’s intent to use that firearm unlawfully as well as defacement of the firearm. While this entry will not deal with every presumption, I will address some of the more common ones as follows:

June 12, 2009

Plaxico Burress Gun Possession Case Will Be Adjourned

by Jeremy Saland

It appears that Plaxico Burress has not reached a disposition with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in connection with the his gun possession arrest and charge of Criminal Possession of a Weapon. The matter is being adjourned until September when Burress returns to 100 Centre Street on Monday. If convicted, Burress would face a minimum of 3.5 years in state prison and a maximum of 15 years. However, it is clear that the parties are working on a deal that would avoid any sentence similar to that.

The former prosecutors at Saland Law PC know that Criminal Possession of a Weapon as it relates to guns and other firearms is a very serious offense. Fortunately, our clients have benefited from our experience in law enforcement and as criminal defense attorneys. If you are charged with an offense related to possession of a weapon it is critical to retain criminal counsel that will not only fight to protect your rights and freedom, but your integrity and livelihood.

June 10, 2009

New York Desk Appearance Ticket / DAT: What Happens if you Don’t Go to Court?

by Jeremy Saland

You have been issued a Desk Appearance Ticket or DAT in New York City (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Staten Island) for Assault, Harassment, Petit Larceny Shoplifting, Drug Possession or any other misdemeanor crime. You make a bad mistake worse by not consulting with a NY criminal defense attorney and compound that mistake yet again by missing your court date. Maybe you thought it was no big deal or you merely forgot, but now you need to rectify the situation ASAP. You get on the phone immediately with experienced criminal defense attorneys and ask him or her the following questions: (1) Was a warrant ordered and (2) can I face any additional charges?

In the event that you missed a return date to court for a NY Desk Appearance Ticket it is very likely that a bench warrant has been issued for your immediate arrest. What that may mean to you is that if you are driving somewhere in New York and you are pulled over for something as small as failure to use your signal when changing lanes, the police may run your information, find the warrant and arrest you. There is even a warrant squad that searches for individuals who have bench warrants or who fail to comply with a condition placed on a sentence.

June 5, 2009

Making a Terroristic Threat: John Zaubler Threatens to “Blow Up” President Obama and Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor

by Jeremy Saland

A New York City man, John Zaubler, was arraigned today for the crime of Making a Terroristic Threat (New York Penal Law Section 490.20). A “D” felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison, the charge relates to alleged threats made by Mr. Zaubler to “blow up” President Barack Obama and Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor. According to a prosecutor, Mr. Zaubler stated “I’m going to kill Judge Sotomayor by blowing her up. I’m going to blow her up. I’m going to do it. I’m going to do it because my girlfriend is not going to federal prison.”

Although Mr. Zaubler is currently at Bellevue Medical Center in Manhattan, New York County Criminal Court Judge James Gibbons arraigned him on live video from 100 Centre Street. According to media reports, it appears that Judge Gibbons adjourned the case for the defendant to receive a psychiatric analysis. This examination is often what is referred to as a “730” examination where the prosecutors and defense attorney try to ascertain whether the defendant is fit to proceed and is capable of understanding the situation he or she faces.

June 5, 2009

When is a Your Firearm, Gun, Revolver or Pistol Loaded in the Eyes of the Law: Criminal Possession of a Weapon

by Jeremy Saland

You have just been arrested for Criminal Possession of a Weapon for possessing a loaded firearm, gun, rifle or revolver. You tell your NY criminal defense attorney that the handgun was not loaded. After all, you had the ammunition locked away in the same carrying case as the gun while checking it at JFK or Laguardia Airports, but the bullets were not physically in it. In a different scenario, you explain to your criminal defense lawyer that your handgun was in a holster and empty while the bullets where in a pouch in your other pocket. How is it, you ask, that you are being charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in New York if the ammunition was not actually inside the gun?

The answer to this question is a fairly simple one. Pursuant to Penal Law Section 265.00(15), “Loaded Firearm” is defined under the NY Penal Law as “any firearm loaded with ammunition or any firearm which is possessed by one who, at the same time, possesses a quantity of ammunition which may be used to discharge the firearm.” See People v. Walston 147 Misc.2d 679 (Kings County 1990) (Possession of shotgun shell where the shotgun was present was sufficient to find the shotgun loaded.)

June 4, 2009

Best Results: Top Shelf Outcome in Hard Fought Defense for Assault

by Jeremy Saland

The best and top criminal defense attorneys in NY fight tenaciously for their clients. Whether that fight is a legal brawl or it rears its head in a more creative way, the former Manhattan prosecutors at Saland Law PC know how to ascertain the best path to a successful criminal defense. In fact, a client charged with Assault in the Third Degree, PL 120.00, just benefited from our experience.

Briefly, our client was charged with Assault in the Third Degree after he allegedly broke the complainant’s nose with his fists. At arraignment, the prosecution asked for bail in the multiple thousands of dollars, but we convinced the judge to release or “ROR” our client. Even before our client saw the judge for the first time, we locked a witness (the complainant’s own friend) into his statement that the complainant was drunk and threw a glass mug at the defendant. Further investigation revealed the complainant’s aggressive past as well as the complainant’s serious mental health problems. Our findings directly went to not only the complainant’s credibility, but violent nature. Although the defendant was about four inches taller and fifty pounds heavier than the complainant and there was no preserved evidence of the defendant’s injuries from the complainant, our investigation helped convince the prosecutor that the complainant may have been the initial aggressor and the defendant acted in self defense. As a result, despite breaking the complainant’s nose and admitting to striking the complainant, our client accepted a disposition where ultimately an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal will prevent him from having (rightfully) any criminal record. Baring an outright dismissal, this ultimate dismissal after the adjournment term is a tremendous result and vindication for our client that he was not a guilty party. As a young man who worked at a top 10 international law firm, our client was not only saved from the embarrassment of the allegations and a criminal record, but he walked away with his career, livelihood and future secure.

June 3, 2009

White Collar Update: M.A. Angeliades, Inc., Three Principles and Others Indicted for $600,000 Larceny

by Jeremy Saland

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office just released more information regarding the fraud indictment involving $600,000 in theft. The defendants, M.A. Angeliades, Inc., Merkourios Angeliades, Dimitri Malakidis and Irena Angeliades were indicted on the charges of Grand Larceny, Offering a False Instrument for Filing, Falsifying Business Records, Bribing a Witness, Bribing a Labor Official and Attempted Tampering with Physical Evidence. Additionally, three employees from Local 731, Anthony Graham, Harold Johnson and Eduardo Visone, were each indicted for Falsifying Business Records, Bribing a Labor Official and Bribing a Witness. It is alleged that their conduct resulted stemmed from 2005 through 2007.

It is alleged that M.A. Angeliades, Inc., a general contracting firm, had four separate contracts with New York City and the MTA. Specifically, M.A. Angeliades, Inc. was to provide the labor to rehabilitate eleven subway stations. In doing so, the company was required to pay the prevailing wages for these jobs. Instead, it is alleged that the above named individuals in some capacity appropriated the wages to themselves and instead of the employees. This was hidden from the MTA through many means including creating false payroll reports.

June 3, 2009

Breaking White Collar Crime News: Manhattan DA to Announce Indictment of M.A. Angeliades Inc. – Company Allegedly Underpaid Employees

by Jeremy Saland

The New York white collar criminal defense attorneys at Saland Law PC have learned that the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is set to announce the indictment of the principles and three employees of M.A. Angeliades Inc. for underpaying employees. It is alleged that the underpayment of the employees was in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars. The company, a construction firm based out of Queens, was a contractor for NYC that did construction work on and in the subway system.

Obviously, as we regularly do, Saland Law PC will keep you informed on the charges, penalties and other interesting facts of this white collar criminal matter as we learn more.

June 2, 2009

Operation Bracelet: Indictment of Brooklyn Jewelry Stores for Failing to Report Taxes

by Jeremy Saland

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 Saland Law PC 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.

June 1, 2009

“Miranda Warnings,” Your Right to Remain Silent and Your NY Criminal Defense

by Jeremy Saland

Whether you are under investigation for a white collar crime or have already been arrested for a weapon crime, it is imperative to retain an experienced New York criminal defense attorney before you talk with law enforcement. It may be that without an admission or statement on your part to the police or FBI, law enforcement has no case against you…that is right…nothing. Whatever the circumstances, whether you voluntarily go to a precinct to talk to the police to “clear the air” or you are already under arrest, you may be waiving your rights and jeopardizing your case. Even more importantly, your fatal mistake may cost you your freedom. Unfortunately for one particular defendant in Nassau County, he learned this lesson the hard way.

In a decision rendered on May 8, 2009, a Nassau County District Court Judge ruled in People v. Alfredo Pena, 2008NA011705, that a defendant’s statements were not the result of a “custodial interrogation” and therefore admissible and not obtained in violation of his rights. This “custodial interrogation” is the key element or principle in New York’s cases involving Miranda and admissions. In the Pena case, the police were investigating the defendant for the crime of Harassment through phone calls. The defendant went to the station voluntarily, waited for about 45 minutes until the detective was available and ultimately made admissions of his involvement. During this entire period of time the defendant was never handcuffed or forced to remain in the precinct. Moreover, no threats or promises were made and the defendant was not arrested. Shortly thereafter, the defendant was read his Miranda warnings, which he voluntarily waived, and he spoke further with the police. Ultimately, as you have probably guessed by now, the police arrested the defendant and the prosecutors indicated that they were going to use all the admissions against the defendant at trial. After motions were made by the defendant’s counsel, a Huntley Hearing (a hearing where a judge determines the admissibility of a defendant’s statement) was ordered and conducted.