New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

New York criminal defense attorneys routinely hear it from their clients. "I was framed" or "I was entrapped." While often times a New York criminal defense lawyer can dissect and locate errors in the investigation, arrest procedure or paperwork of a criminal case, establishing that a client is the victim of entrapment, as a matter of law, is not as easy. In fact, entrapment is specifically defined in the New York Penal Law (NY PL 40.05) and is far more complex than the "they made me do it" or "they pushed me into it" defense. That beings said, if you can establish that you violated a particular criminal statute in New York due to this entrapment, an affirmative defense to the charges exists.

What is Entrapment - New York Penal Law 40.05

Although not a verbatim cut and paste of the actual statute and not a substitute for a reading of it and discussion with your legal counsel, entrapment is defined as follows:

If you were induced or encouraged by a public servant (for example, the police), or a person cooperating with them, to engage in particular conduct AND it was done to obtain evidence against you in a criminal prosecution AND the method used to obtain that evidence created a substantial risk that you would commit the particular offense even though you were not generally disposed to committing such an offense, you may have an entrapment defense.

Other critical points in this statute are that the inducement and encouragement must be active and merely affording you the opportunity to commit a particular crime or offense is not sufficient to raise to the level of entrapment.

What is Encouragement and Inducement

"The testimony of the undercover officers demonstrates that they merely afforded defendant an opportunity to commit the offense, which standing alone is insufficient to warrant an entrapment charge ( see, Penal Law § 40.05; People v. Thompson, 47 N.Y.2d 940, 941, 419 N.Y.S.2d 948, 393 N.E.2d 1021; see also, Mathews v. United States, supra, 485 U.S. at 66, 108 S.Ct. at 888). Merely asking a defendant to commit a crime [of Patronizing a Prostitute by asking if he wanted to receive oral sex] is not such inducement or encouragement as to constitute entrapment." See People v. Brown, 82 N.Y.2d 869 (1993)

Being "duped" into committing an offense is not necessarily entrapment due to encouragement or inducement. See People v. Skervin, 17 A.D.3d 771 (3rd Dept. 2005)

Who Has to Prove the Entrapment

Because it is an affirmative defense, the burden of proving that you were entrapped rests on your shoulders (it is the defendant's burden).

The above description of the entrapment defense is very brief and far from detailed. Do not rely on this blog entry to ascertain if entrapment exists and is applicable in your case. Instead, discus this matter with your criminal defense counsel.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm located in New York City. Representing clients throughout the New York region, both partners previously served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

You go into a restaurant in Manhattan or store in Brooklyn and pay with cash. It turns out, one of the $20 or $100 dollar bills is fake and a forgery. In the alternative, you are arrested for an unrelated charge in Queens and when you are searched, the police recover numerous counterfeit $50 dollar bills. Unfortunately, you find yourself under arrest and charged with a crime and in need of a New York criminal defense lawyer experienced in counterfeit money crimes, Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument. As you wrap your head around the turn of events you begin to wonder about the crimes you may now face, what the potential punishments are and what are your defenses.

New York Crimes for Possessing Counterfeit Money

In New York State, one may be charged with a few different crimes for possession of counterfeit currency. The most likely offense, and the one we will address in this entry, is the felony of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the First Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law section 170.30 (NY PL 170.30).

In general, one is guilty of NY PL 170.30 as it applies to counterfeit money when one possesses a written instrument which purports to be money with the knowledge that the currency is forged (not real) and with the intent to defraud another person with that counterfeit money.

Potential Punishment for Possessing Counterfeit Money

If one is convicted of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the First Degree in New York, one faces up to 15 years in state prison. If one has no prior criminal record there is no mandatory term of incarceration, but the maximum term is 5 to 15 years. If one is a predicate felon (generally has a prior felony in the last ten years), then one faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 3 to 6 years and a maximum sentence of 7.5 to 15 years in prison.

Potential Criminal Defense to NY PL 170.30 as it Relates to Counterfeit Currency

While this entry should not serve as advice or guidance for your particular matter, the following are some ideas or issues that can be discussed with your New York criminal defense attorney if you determine it is relevant and worthy to do so.

(1) A key element to this offense is the element of knowledge. You must know the instrument (currency) is fake or forged. Certainly, your lack of knowledge may be more believable to the prosecution or a jury if the counterfeit bill is only one or a couple out of many in your possession as opposed to each and every bill. It may also be difficult for the prosecution to prove the element of knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt depending on the quality of the alleged counterfeits. For example if you have two fake $20s amongst fifteen real $20s and they look good, how could you have know it was fake (that is an argument that needs a much deeper analysis and explanation)? Did you only try to pass those fake $20s and hold onto the real ones? Do you have a job or career that would give you access to that money? Do you have proof that you went to a bank or ATM? In the alternative, if the alleged counterfeits were so bad and would not likely fool anyone, how will the prosecution prove you had an intent to defraud?

(2) Another issue is the search of your person. What was the basis of your stop? Did the police have grounds to search you and recover the allegedly fake currency? This defense is applicable to many crimes beyond Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the First Degree as it relates to counterfeit money.

(3) Did you make any statements? If so, can you corroborate your claims? In the alternative, if your statement was not exculpatory, did you inculpate yourself by making some form of an admission? If you made an admission, was it the product of a custodial interrogation and, if so, were you advised of your rights?

The above defenses are very general and merely gloss over what would typically require an in depth analysis in each and every case. For further information on New York White Collar Crimes as well as New York Fraud Related Offenses, please review Crotty Saland's New York criminal lawyer blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerblog.Com) or review the the NY White Collar Crime section and subsections of the website.

Jeremy Saland and Elizabeth Crotty both served as prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorneys office prior to starting the New York criminal defense firm. Crotty Saland PC represents clients in all criminal matters throughout the New York City region.

In the first entry in the New York Gambling Crimes series, I addressed the crime of Promoting Gambling in New York (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx, Westchester or any other County in New York State) as well as the dry, yet important, definitions underlying this and other gambling statutes. Today's entry addresses some cases that will help you further understand this offense and understand Promoting Gambling and related crimes from the perspective of a New York criminal defense attorney. More specifically, this entry will address who can be charged with Promoting Gambling pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 225.05 and 225.10.

To start things off, one cannot be charged with the crime of Promoting Gambling if one is merely a participant in that gambling. The Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, recently affirmed that position in the Matter of Victor M., 9 N.Y.3d 84, 845 N.Y.S.2d 771, 876 N.E.2d 1187 (2007). In that case, the Court found that a player in a game of dice (it could have been any other game for the purpose of this conclusion) could not be charged with this offense because merely as a player, that person did not advance or profit from the unlawful gambling activity. One has to look no further than New York Penal Law 225.00(4) and (5) for corroboration in the statute itself to support the Court of Appeals' determination. Keep in mind, that the terms "advance" and "profit" are both specifically defined in the statute.

Although a fact specific analysis is required to ascertain whether one is liable for Promoting Gambling, the following cases are good guides to assist one in determining criminal liability:

Ordinary betting as opposed to professional is generally not the type of gambling punishable under the statute (old gambling statute). See People v. Stedeker, 175 N.Y. 57 (1903)

Courts seem to disagree if games such as "Three Card Monte" and "Majhong" are games of "skill" and therefore are not considered gambling offenses. A bigger issues is which characteristic is greater, i.e., "skill" or "chance." See People v. Denson, 192 Misc.2d 48 (NY Cty Crim. Ct. 2002) and People v. Li Ai Hua, 24 Misc.3d 1142 (NY Cty. Crim. Ct. 2009)

The New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC have successfully represented defendants investigated for and charged with gambling felonies involving search warrants and/or wire taps. For further information on the crime of Promoting Gambling in New York, contact one of our New York criminal defense lawyers for a consultation and review the prior NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com entry for a general understanding of Promoting Gambling in New York.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Crotty Saland PC represents clients throughout the New York City region.

The New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC 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 PC 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 PC's website at new-york-lawyers.org. 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 PC 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 PC 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.

Manhattan, home to Wall Street and other global institutions, has always viewed itself as the center of the financial universe in terms of growth, management and even fraud. Once again, however, the Queens County District Attorney's Office may have taken a larger share of the "fraud pie." According to the Queens District Attorney's Office press release, 17 people, including two attorneys, have been arrested in a Mortgage Fraud and Grand Larceny scheme were 26 residential properties, valued at nearly $13 million, were used to defraud legitimate homeowners and lending institutions out of $3 million.

According to District Attorney Brown:

"In trying to hide their elaborate scheme from law enforcement and regulatory scrutiny, the two main defendants are alleged to have used unscrupulous attorneys and straw buyers and the fragmented structure of the real estate settlement process to funnel millions of dollars through various shell corporations that they either owned or which were controlled by other defendants. Money loss aside, the defendants are accused of creating a human tragedy of immense proportions for the homeowners who had turned to them in a desperate hope of saving their homes from foreclosure."

The seventeen defendants (Roger Huggins, Inderpaul Sookraj, Shawn D. Chand, Trevor Rupnarain, Anand Bharat, Prahalad Mahadeo, Mangal Singh, Ariel Huggins, Mohammad Abdallah, Michael Abdul, Faiz Ali, Jagdesh Kuldip, Purnima Mahammed, Aneesa Mohammed, Krishna Ramroop, Vadianuth Sanichar and David Sookdeo) are charged in varying capacities with:

Grand Larceny in the First and Second Degrees ("B" and "C" felonies punishable by up to 25 years and 15 years in prison respectively), Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the First Degree ("B" felony punishable by up to 25 years in prison), Money Laundering in the First Degree ("B" felony punishable by up to 25 years in prison), Identity Theft in the First Degree ("D" felony punishable by up to 7 years in prison), Forgery in the Second Degree ("D" felony punishable by up to 7 years in prison), Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degrees ("D" felony punishable by up to 7 years in prison), Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree ("E" felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison) and Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree ("E" felony punishable by up to 4years in prison).

Fortunately for the defendants, the Queens District Attorney's Office did not seek an indictment on one of their hallmark offenses - Enterprise Corruption. That being said, the above offenses are some of the most significant white collar crimes.

For further information on the above crimes, please follow the respective links. For a reading of the press release from the Queens District Attorney's Office, please go to the next page.

Continue reading "Queens DA: $3 Million Mortgage Fraud Scheme Nets 17 Arrests Including 2 Attorneys" »

To the likely chagrin of the hard partying summer Hamptons crowd, Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota is already cracking down on the "fun" before the season has even started. District Attorney Spota has announced that twenty people have been arrested in a heroin ring in and around the East End of Suffolk County. It is alleged that as much as 2500 bags of heroin with a street value of $40,000 were being sold each week since the investigation began in October. Reports indicate that the bust was one of or the largest heroin drug rings ever taken down in the area. It is alleged that the crew made over two million dollars a year peddling heroin with names including "google," "black ice," "quicksand" and "privilege."

According to law enforcement and local reports, 40 bags of heroin, 5.6 ounces of crack cocaine and more than $70,000 in cash was recovered from the home of Shawn Badgett when police executed a search warrant. Compounding matters, it is alleged at the time of the execution, Mr. Badgett was displaying his best Martha Stewart and Rachael Ray. However, instead of cooking a delectable treat, it is alleged that he was cooking cocaine.

In addition to the narcotics, it is alleged that Mr. Bradgett's home was littered with money. Whether Mr. Badgett had time to make it to the bank is unknown as police allegedly recovered $73,000 in numerous places including a pair of pants that he was not wearing. The police also found $90,000 in Mr. Badgett's safe. Completing the trifecta, it is alleged that counterfeit money was recovered from a purse.

It is alleged that a total of $173,000 in cash as well as 4000 bags of heroin were recovered throughout the day's arrests. Those arrested included:

Terrence Dozier, Terrence Smith, Juan Pabon, Kathryn Schirippa, Michael Maffetone, Lashanne Anderson, Preston Washington, Sharieff Burton, Brian Rive, Sonya Vonica-Smith, Jessica Bosworth, Jovan Coffey, Daniel Charbonnier, Angela Hobbs, Shavar Coffey, David Patruno, Edwin Felix, Cynthia Dozier Walker and Rondalynn Williams.

For further information on New York Drug and Controlled Substance Laws , please follow the highlighted link. Moreover, review the New York Criminal Law Blog at NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com and search the Narcotics and Drug section for recent cases, legal decisions and criminal statutes.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm located in lower Manhattan. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC represents clients throughout the New York City region.

According to the New York Post, Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr. and his fellow chief prosecutors throughout New York City may have a problem on their hands. Mariem Megalla, an NYPD civilian lab technician, has been suspended by the NYPD from her job testing drugs and narcotics recovered by the police. Technicians such as Ms. Megalla are relied on by prosecutors from all of the New York City offices in pursuing criminal charges against those who possess or sell drugs and other controlled substances. Only time will tell whether the investigation reveals that Ms. Megalla did no wrong, was sloppy or perpetrated an intentional fraud. Having said that, one thing is certain. Right now, if the New York Post story is accurate, there could be numerous people charged with possessing or selling drugs in New York who should be contacting their criminal defense attorneys to ascertain whether or not Ms. Megalla tested the alleged controlled substances in their criminal cases.

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 PC 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.

Former New York Giant Linebacker, Lawrence Taylor (L.T.), was arrested in Ramapo, New York after he allegedly raped a fifteen year old girl at a Holiday Inn. Although the allegations are slowly coming out, it appears that Taylor will be charged with Rape in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law section 130.25). Rape in the Third Degree is an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in prison. Beyond the potential sentence, however, is the additional issue of registering as a sex offender.

Based on the alleged facts that are available now, the basis of the rape charge is due to the age of the alleged victim. New York Penal Law 130.25(2) makes it a crime for an individual twenty one years or older to have sexual intercourse with another individual under seventeen.

Again, further allegations will be revealed, but it is interesting to note that there are a few reports in the media that indicate that the young girl was beaten. If in fact this is true, the crime of Rape in the Third Degree may be elevated to a more serious "B" felony punishable by up to 25 years in prison. Pursuant to New York Penal Law 130.35(1), one is guilty of Rape in the First Degree if that person engages in sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion. While this would be the most serious offense, other crimes, including Assault, could also be filed.

Crotty Saland PC is a criminal defense firm located in New York City. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent clients throughout the New York region.

If you have ever been arrested for Making Graffiti (New York Penal Law 145.60) or Possession of Graffiti Instruments (New York Penal Law 145.65) in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens or anywhere in New York City, you know that the Graffiti / Vandal Squad detectives are aggressive in their pursuit of alleged offenders. The bottom line is that Making Graffiti and Possession of Graffiti instruments is a serious offense in the eyes of law enforcement. If the damage is significant, prosecutors may seek restitution in addition to whatever the disposition might be.

Often times, the gravity of the alleged damage is tied to the ultimate deal in the case. This assumes, of course, that you have explored with your New York criminal defense attorney whether or not the prosecution can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt or whether there are any legal, factual or procedural defenses to the allegations. Regardless, the question addressed in this entry is clear. What if it was not your intent to cause the damage? What if you were expressing yourself through your art? In other words, is it a defense to the crimes of Making Graffiti and Possession of a Graffiti instrument if you did not have the intent to cause damage when you painted, etched, or drew on another person's property, or in the alternative, that the property was not damaged?

To be clear, the short answer is that the statutes and underlying definitions involving graffiti offenses in New York require an intent to damage the property of another without their permission. Moreover, whether or not there was actual damage is of no consequence. The statutes merely require an intent to damage whether or not that the alleged offender was successful. As set forth in People v. Vinolas, 174 Misc.2d 740 (NY Crim. Ct. 1997):

"The intentional, rather than inadvertent, nature of defendant's actions...tend to show that the defendant intended to damage complainant's property. The culpable mental state is not that the defendant intended to cause actual damage, as required by [New York Penal Law section 145.00 - Criminal Mischief], but rather, 'that the actor acted intentionally in placing a mark upon the property which the actor had no right to mark and no reasonable ground to believe that he/she had such right.' Whether the defendant actually caused damage is irrelevant for purposes of these charges; and whether the defendant intended to cause such damage is a question of fact for the trier of fact and not a consideration for the instant motion [to dismiss for facial insufficiency]."

Although this is the short answer and one that needs far more vetting, the above case makes it clear that it is one's intent to damage as opposed to the ultimate results that are important.

For further information on the crimes of Making Graffiti (New York Penal Law 145.60) and Possession of Graffiti Instruments (New York Penal Law 145.60), please follow the appropriate links or contact the New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC to arrange for a consultation.

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 PC is criminal defense firm located in New York. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC 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.