New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

December 9, 2008

Grand Larceny & Petit Larceny: Differing Criminal Theories of the Same Crime & Your Criminal Defense

As a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and as a NY criminal defense attorney I have handled too many crimes relating to Petit and Grand Larceny than I can count. As a prosecutor I supervised, among other cases, the investigations and prosecutions of a multi-million dollar “pump and dump” stock scheme in conjunction with the SEC and a multi-million dollar extortion attempt of an NBA All-Star. Over the past few months I successfully represented clients in two separate Grand Larceny cases. In one, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged my client with a “B” felony for allegedly “stealing” approximately $5,000,000 dollars of city and state taxes (including penalties). The District Attorney’s Office charged my other client with a “D” felony for allegedly stealing in the neighborhood of $25,000 in property from multiple people. Despite the significant amount of alleged theft, neither of my clients went to jail or prison as a result of their conduct. One of their dispositions even included an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) despite an admission by the client as to the alleged criminal activity. While we at Saland Law PC can’t guarantee any particular result in a criminal matter, we can certainly guarantee that we will work tirelessly on each case so that we give you the best opportunity to get you where you want, and need, to be.

While there are many good criminal defense attorneys, it is important that your criminal defense attorney will not only travel down any ethical and legal road on your behalf, but is familiar with the nuances of the statute or statutes you are charged with. That being said, we are going to address those nuances of the statutes relating to Larceny.

December 5, 2008

Criminal Mischief – NY Penal Law 145.00: Lacking Intent as a Defense

by Jeremy Saland

You have just been arrested for Criminal Mischief, NY Penal Law 145.00 and you are waiting to see the judge after going through Manhattan Central Booking. Earlier in the day you got into a fight and threw a metal garbage bin from the corner of the street at some guy. Fortunately, you missed him, but the can hit a parked car causing a scratch that will cost the owner $200 to repair. You tell your NY criminal defense attorney that you intended to hit the guy and you never wanted to damage the vehicle. Well, your criminal defense attorney, if he is skilled and experienced, may have some good news for you.

According to Penal Law 145.00, a person is guilty of Criminal Mischief in the Forth Degree when, having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe the he has such a right, he, under subsections (1) and (3), intentionally damages property of another person or recklessly damages property of another person in an amount exceeding two hundred fifty dollars.

December 1, 2008

A Legal Leg to Stand On? Plaxico Burress Shoots Self in Thigh – Manhattan DA to Charge with Criminal Possession of a Weapon

by Jeremy Saland

According to the media, New York Giants All Pro wide receiver Plaxico Burress is turning himself in to the New York City Police Department for shooting himself in the leg this past weekend in Manhattan. As of now, it appears that he will be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon, a class “C” felony, punishable by a minimum of 3.5 years in state prison to a maximum of 15 years.

Unfortunately for Mr.Burress, the criminal law and consequences have changed significantly in recent years. The “old” law required that prosecutors prove not only that you possessed a loaded firearm (handgun, pistol, etc.), but that you had the intent to use it unlawfully against another. Now, the mere possession of a loaded firearm outside your home or place of business constitutes the same level crime. That is, possession alone is a “C” felony and the prosecution does not have to prove in any way that you, or in this case Plaxico Burress, intended to use that gun unlawfully against another person. Only 2-3 years ago, under the same set of facts, Mr. Burress would likely have been charged “only” with a “D” felony punishable by a minimum of 2 years in state prison and a maximum of seven years if the prosecution could not establish that the gun was possessed with the intent to use it unlawfully.

November 27, 2008

Permitting Prostitution: A Seemingly Straight Forward Crime in NY

by Jeremy Saland

The experienced NY criminal defense attorneys at Saland Law PC can tell you that it is not merely the “John” and the escort or prostitute that may be liable for prostitution or a prostitution related crime. In fact, if you allow your premises to be used for escorts who provide “GFE” services and prostitution, you may be guilty of Permitting Prostitution, pursuant to NY Penal Law 230.40, even if you were never directly involved in the offense.

A person is guilty of Permitting Prostitution when that person, having possession or control of a premises which he or she knows is being used for prostitution purposes, fails to make reasonable efforts to halt or abate such use.

November 24, 2008

Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance & Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia: Constructive Possession

by Jeremy Saland

The NY criminal defense attorneys and founding partners of Crotty & Saland, LLP, have handled countless cases involving narcotics and drugs as both Manhattan prosecutors and as criminal defense attorneys. In the area of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance and Criminally Using Drug Paraphernalia, Crotty & Saland, LLP knows that prosecutors can charge you for either possessing the drugs and paraphernalia or they can charge you for constructively possessing that contraband. In other words, while the drugs may not have been in your pocket, in some capacity law enforcement has alleged that you exhibited dominion or control over the contraband.

Recently, on October 30, 2008, New York (Manhattan) County Criminal Court Judge Elisa S. Koenderman in People v. Anthony Lebron, 2008NY032832, dismissed a complaint charging the above offenses because the complaint was facially insufficient. In that matter, the police arrested Mr. Lebron after they recovered eighteen ziplock bags containing crack/cocaine residue from a bedroom in “the defendant’s apartment.” Additionally, according to the Court’s decision and review of the complaint against Mr. Lebron, “three large ziplock bags containing numerous small pink ziplock bags, four large ziplock bags containing numerous small clear ziplock bags, a scale, a glass pyrex measuring cup, and a white cup, all allegedly intended for use in the packaging and dispensing of narcotic drugs, were also recovered from ‘the defendant’s apartment.'”

November 20, 2008

Computer Crimes: Criminal Defense to Unauthorized Use of a Computer, Computer Trespass, Computer Tampering and Unauthorized Duplication

by Jeremy Saland

Computer crimes have become more rampant as computers have become a part of every day life from lap tops and ipods to pdas and even cell phones. As a result, it is no longer atypical to find individuals charged with computer crimes such as Unauthorized Use of a Computer, Computer Trespass, Computer Tampering, and Unlawful Duplication of Computer Related Material. Both Jeremy Saland and Elizabeth Crotty, founding members of Saland Law PC,served as prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office and received hands on training to deal with these and other crimes. Whether it was representing clients in computer related matters as their criminal defense attorney, prosecuting targets for these crimes or taking classes in computer offense, Saland Law PC, has the skills and real experience to assess your case and mount the best possible defense.

In conjunction with examining the strength and weaknesses of the case, one of the first places to start an analysis of a computer crimes case is to go directly to the Penal Law. Section 156.60 lays out some specific defenses as follows:

November 16, 2008

NY Criminal Law: Lacking Intent in Matters Involving Forgery, Forged Instruments and Falsifying Business Records

by Jeremy Saland

An introductory class of criminal law in NY would likely teach any future attorney that if there is no intent to commit a particular crime that requires such intent, then there should be a valid defense to that particular crime. This could not be more true than in cases involving Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and Falsifying Business Records.

The first two crimes, Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, contain legal language that the individual have the “intent to defraud.” Although not always a simple task or the correct way to defend against these charges if the intent is clear, your criminal defense attorney needs to argue, if applicable, that you never intended on defrauding anyone (WOW! That was easy!). While the analysis of this defense is simple on its face, clearly each case requires an in depth review to determine how to establish the lack of intent.

November 12, 2008

Nixzaliz Santiago, Mother of Nixzmary Brown, Senteced to 43 Years State Prison

by Jeremy Saland

A Brooklyn Supreme Court Judge sentenced Nixzaliz Santiago, the mother of 7-year-old Nixzmary Brown, to 43 years state prison today after she was convicted on October 17, 2008 for Manslaughter. Her husband, and the girl’s stepfather, had previously been convicted for the same offense and received 29 years. In fact, it is Mr. Santiago that dealt the fatal blow after Nixzmary took yogurt from the fridge without permission. It is no surprise to this NY criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor that Ms. Santiago received a harsher sentence than her husband.

According reports, Judge DiMango stated to Ms. Santiago at her sentence that she “may not have delivered the fatal blow, but . . . it was in your power to prevent the effects of it…[w]ere it not for your failure to act, Nixzmary Brown would have probably not died from that blow that day.”

November 11, 2008

NY Inventory Searches: Vehicle Search without a Search Warrant

by Jeremy Saland

Your car was stopped in Manhattan after the police accused you of DWI. The police pulled you over in Brooklyn for Forgery or Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument because you had a fake registration or license. Maybe you were stopped in the Yonkers and charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon because the police claim they thought you had a gun. Regardless of the reason, the police now want to search your car.

The police can search your car in varying degrees depending on the circumstances. Without going into details as to each of those circumstances and degrees, a search can be made if there is an exigent (emergency) circumstance, the police have a search warrant, the driver consents, or there is contraband such as drugs or a gun in plain view. Even assuming one of these reasons are applicable, a search may be limited in its scope such as to you reachable area.

November 7, 2008

NY Criminal Defense – Endangering the Welfare of a Child ､260.10: Merely Leaving a Child Home Alone

by Jeremy Saland

When representing clients in matters involving Endangering the Welfare of a Child, Penal Law ､260.10 New York criminal defense attorneys routinely deal with a host of different facts and circumstances. Sometimes a parent’s activity clearly violates the statute when, for example, the child is assaulted. Other times, however, the actions which rise to the level of Endangering the Welfare of a Child are not clear. Recently, on August 6, 2008, Judge Michael Gerstein of the Kings County (Brooklyn) Criminal Court, held that leaving a child home alone may constitute Endangering the Welfare of a Child pursuant to PL ､260.10.

In People v. Carmen Reyes, 2008KN019196, a four year old child was left home alone for fifteen minutes. Ms. Reyes’ criminal defense attorney made a motion to dismiss the complaint for facial insufficiency arguing, in part, that prosecution provided no facts that would support the contention that the Defendant knowingly acted in a manner that would be dangerous to the child.