New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Leandra's Law in New York has made the consequences of a misdemeanor Driving While Intoxicated (DWI or DUI) conviction that much more severe. If it wasn't clear that prosecutors and judges in New York have had a zero or minimal tolerance policy for the crimes of Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) 1192, Leandra's Law has done away with those questions. As of August 15, 2010, anyone convicted of a DWI misdemeanor not only faces the potential fines, programs and other penalties, but now one must place a mandatory ignition interlocking device on one's car for at least six months.

The ignition interlock device required by Leandra's law must be blown into prior to the car starting. Moreover, at random times during the vehicle's operation, the device requires a sampling to prevent the vehicle from shutting down. It is interesting to note that not only must the individual convicted of New York DWI / DUI (VTL 1192) have this device placed in their vehicle, but they are not permitted to drive other vehicles that do not have the apparatus set up. In the event you do so or tamper with the interlock device, you will face new and additional misdemeanor charges.

For extensive information on New York DWI / DUI laws as well as statutes and legal decisions, please follow the appropriate link above to the DWI section of Crotty Saland PCs website.

Former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York DWI criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland PC serve clients throughout the New York city and metropolitan area.

You thought you were doing all the right things, but you were arrested at an airport in New York (usually in Queens at either LaGuardia airport or John F. Kennedy - JFK - airport) for possessing a loaded firearm or gun. Your life just went from 0 to 60 mph in two seconds and you are now charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 265.03). Often called CPW 2, possessing a loaded firearm, even without any malicious, "bad," or criminal intent, is punishable by a mandatory 3.5 years in state prison if it is possessed outside your home and place of business. Sadly, you may have a permit in your home state, the firearm, gun, revolver or pistol may have been in a proper hard sided and locked case with the ammunition removed and you may have even attempted to check it with an agent at the counter. Unfortunately, New York law is clear. Possessing a loaded firearm outside your home or place of business in New York State without a permit in New York is a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Compounding matters, you may have made the reasonable assumption that your gun or firearm was not loaded because you removed a clip, cartridge or ammunition from the firearm. However, because you stored those bullets in the same carrying case, New York law considers the firearm loaded.

In the event that you are arrested in Queens at one of the airports, you will be taken to central booking and to the Queens Courthouse. Make no mistake, your innocent error of believing it was "OK" to possess that gun in New York will be lost on the the Queens prosecutors at your arraignment. While they are merely doing their jobs, they will likely ask for bail. Whether you retain a New York criminal defense attorney experienced in weapon crimes such as NY PL 265.03 or you utilize a public defender, it is critical to convince the judge that little or no bail is necessary to ensure your return to court.

Whether or not bail is set, your New York criminal lawyer will have the opportunity to discuss the facts of the case, whether you had a permit in your home state and legally purchased the firearm, and other important facts with a supervisor or senior prosecutor. The last thing you want to have happen is that the District Attorney's Office presents your criminal case to a Grand Jury. If that happens, explaining away the error that you made will be exponentially more difficult while the likelihood that prosecutors will seek state prison will increase drastically.

Each case involving CPW 2 is not only extremely serious, but is unique and requires a specific analysis and defensive plan. The former Manhattan prosecutors and New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC have had tremendous success and have obtained top results for clients charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 265.03), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree (New York Penal Law 265.01) and other weapon crimes. In fact, while past success does not guarantee future results, we recently obtained a dismissal and two violations whereby three separate clients walked away from from this terrible experience (all three had "loaded" guns at the airport) without a criminal record or going to jail.

For extensive information on New York gun/firearm and other weapon crimes, Criminal Possession of a Weapon and gun arrests at LaGuardia, JFK and other New York or Queens airports, please follow the highlighted link. Additional information including statutes and legal decisions can be found there as well.

The attorneys at Crotty Saland PC are New York criminal defense lawyers representing clients accused of or arrested for crimes throughout the New York City region.

Tyco, BCCI, Barclays...the storied tradition of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office continues to this very day. Ranging from a few sheckles to over $10,000, 59 taxi cab drivers have been arrested by law enforcement in an unparalleled scheme after they finished working their twelve hours shifts for cranky New Yorkers. According to District Attorney Cyrus Vance, the alleged evil offenders bilked passengers out of a collective $235,000. Despite these allegations, according to at least one individual with knowledge of the case, it is plausible that some of the accused may be victims of an imperfect system that did not properly calibrate, calculate or maintain the correct fees. Others, including a man alleged to have stolen over $10,000, may not have such a defense or the sympathy of any New Yorker who has been scammed by a cabbie.

Facing the charges of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in prison, and Petit Larceny, an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, many of these cab drivers have bigger and greater collateral issues to be concerned about. Not only do they run the risk of forfeiting their ability to drive a cab and provide for their families, but if they are not citizens they will certainly have immigration consequences as well.

Robert Morgenthau always stressed the importance of fighting crime in the suites as well as the streets. In other words, both violent and street crimes as well as crimes of fraud and deceit must be vigorously prosecuted whether perpetrated by the City's poorest or Her elite. Here, DA Vance has, for now, combined the two.

Additional information on criminal statues, including Fraud Crimes and White Collar Crimes, can be through the highlighted link. Further information on recent legal decisions, cases in the news and other statutes can be found on the Crotty Saland PC website or on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com).

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused throughout the New York City region.

Braylon Edwards, the New York Jets star wide receiver, was arrested and charged in Manhattan after being stopped for suspicion of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI / DUI) and drunk driving. Although it is not clear what, if any, field sobriety tests were administered, reports indicate that Edwards blew a .16 on the Intoxilyzer (a Breathalyzer device). The likely charges are VTL 1192.2 for registering .08 or above, VTL 1192.3 ("Common Law DWI") based on the observations of the police officer which may have included watery blood-shot eyes, slurred speech, etc., and VTL 1192.1 (Driving While Ability Impaired). DWI in New York pursuant to VTL 1192.2 and 1192.3 are both misdemeanors. VTL 1192.1 is a violation and would not result in a criminal conviction.

While it is too early to give a full analysis of Edwards' DWI case, as a general rule, Manhattan prosecutors do not make non-criminal offers on DWI arrests where the BAC level is as high as .16. While it is common for offers of VTL 1192.1 (a traffic infraction) to be made on DWIs in the vicinity of .08 to .12, it is significantly more difficult to get an offer the higher one's BAC is. Other factors prosecutors examine include the defendant's history and whether there were any elements of the offense that would enable them to charge additional crimes such as Reckless Endangerment (DWI by itself is not necessarily "reckless" in the eyes of the law. Other factors of criminality must be present such as speeding / weaving through traffic, barely avoiding pedestrians, etc.). Moreover, although Edwards did not blow a .18, if he had done so, Aggravated DWI would be charged further limiting possible dispositions.

Potential sentences on DWI for a first time offender include up to one year in jail, a fine from $500 to $1000, potential community service or probation, a drinking and driving program and a three year assessment / fee on one's license. Moreover, one's license will be revoked six months. A stay of that revocation may be made at the time of sentencing so that the convicted may apply for a conditional license relating to work. Compounding matters, As of August 15, 2010, Leandra's Law requires that an ignition interlock device be installed on one's vehicle at the expense of that person. Those convicted of DWI as a misdemeanor cannot drive any vehicle without such a device.

Here, because of the level of the alleged intoxication and the prior assault in Cleveland to a friend of LeBron James, it is likely that no offer will be made. That is, he will be required to plead guilty to a misdemeanor. The potential punishment will be as set forth above. It is an interesting side note, that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has recently begun presenting misdemeanor DWIs to the Grand Jury. Whether they are now judge shopping or believe that Supreme Court Judges, as opposed to Criminal Court Judges, will take the cases more seriously, is not merely a potentially ethical question, but one that raises many questions. Where Edwards will find himself is yet to be seen.

Even assuming that an offer is not made, Edwards and his criminal defense lawyer need not throw their hands up in the air. What was the basis of the stop? Why was the vehicle pulled over? When Mr. Edwards was given a Breathalyzer or Intoxilyzer, was it done so properly? Was he advised of his rights? Was the machine in proper working order and calibrated correctly? At a minimum, the District Attorney's Office will provide some of this information through paperwork and a video recording at or shortly after Edwards' arraignment. In addition to providing this paperwork, Edwards' license will be suspended and, if applicable, his criminal defense attorney can ask for a Hardship Hearing for an "immediate" conditional license.

While I don't expect him to be bunk mates with Plaxico Burress, Edwards not only has to deal with the criminal consequences of this DWI arrest, but he won't be finding the End Zone any time soon.

For extensive information on New York DWI crimes and laws including a "New York DWI Primer," please follow the highlighted link. In the next week further information will be published on Leandra's law and the ignition interlock devices as well as the new crimes associated with manipulating or circumventing these devices. For additional criminal statutes, legal decisions and newsworthy cases relating to DWI as well as other offenses, please review the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Crotty Saland PC is a Manhattan based criminal defense firm. Prior to starting Crotty Saland PC, our two founding New York criminal defense lawyers served as prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Crotty Saland PC represents the accused throughout the New York City region.

You were arrested or given a New York Desk Appearance Ticket in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens or anywhere else in the New York City region for shoplifting, Petit Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (New York Penal Law sections 155.25 and 165.40). You are understandably concerned and upset. You contacted an experienced New York criminal defense lawyer because you are rightfully concerned about how this arrest will impact your future and you want to keep your record clean.

As you and your New York criminal defense attorney discuss the facts of your case you begin to get agitated about how you were treated. You, like many before, are upset that store security stopped, searched, questioned and even asked you to sign documents without answering your questions fully or advising you of your rights. Compounding matters, you felt threatened and compelled to sign these papers they put before you. Store security may have even rummaged through your personal belongings and bags. Is this OK? Were the security officers permitted to act in this manner? What about your rights?

Generally, a search or statement taken by a security guard is not suppressible. Unlike actions taken by the police, actions, albeit potentially rude or scary, taken by private security personnel of a store are not viewed by the law in the same manner. If the police stop, search and take a statement from you, the law requires that there be varying degrees of criminality and ultimately probable cause if you are arrested. Moreover, you must be advised of your rights before that statement is made if you are in custody and there is an interrogation. Otherwise, that evidence against you may not be used. You are not afforded these protections when a private store security guard does the same.

Despite the general rule listed above, one thing you may wish to discuss with your shoplifting criminal defense lawyer is whether or not the private security guard was acting as an arm of the state or law enforcement. If so, a State Action Hearing may be sought. While it is atypical for courts to find state action in a reactionary (as opposed to a "sting") shoplifting case, the Court of a Appeals, New York's highest court, found in People v. Ray, 65 N.Y.2d 282 (1985):

"For state action to exist, it must be demonstrated that official participation in the investigation at issue preceded, or occurred contemporaneously with, the signing or utterance of an inculpatory statement. For example, when police officers have actively participated in defendant's apprehension, exerted official power to restrain defendant, escorted defendant to the site of interrogation, and awaited the outcome of the privately conducted interrogation in close proximity to the place of questioning, a custodial atmosphere of the nature Miranda was designed to alleviate has been created. ( See, People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 528, supra, 419 N.Y.S.2d 447, 393 N.E.2d 443.) Under circumstances where police participation precedes or occurs contemporaneously with the private elicitation of inculpatory evidence, so as to create a coercive, custodial environment with the reasonable potential of infringing defendant's privilege against compulsory incrimination, the Miranda safeguards must be observed."

The paragraph above should make it clear why there is no state action in most shoplifting cases. Unlike these factors, most police involvement occurs after you have been apprehended, questioned or searched by the store security officer. However, if the facts of your particular case are different, a State Action Hearing may be warranted. Even if it is not, it is critically important to discuss other potential hearings or issues to challenge your stop, arrest, search and statements as well as the evidence against you. Each case is unique and requires a equally unique analysis. While one line of defense may not work or be applicable in your case, a new door to a different one may be opened.

For extensive information on New York theft crimes, larceny and shoplifting, please follow the highlighted link to the Theft Offense section of Crotty Saland PC's New York Criminal Lawyer Blog. For additional information regarding Desk Appearance Tickets in Brooklyn, Manhattan and the New York City Area, please follow the respective link as well.

Founded by New York Criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC represents clients throughout the New York City region.

Reckless Endangerment, New York Penal Law sections 120.20 and 120.25, is either an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail or a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison. While I have defined Reckless Endangerment in the First and Second Degrees in other entries, if one acts reckless and causes a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death (or they act with a depraved indifference to human life), they are setting themselves up for this charge. Having said that, merely acting stupid does not mean one acted reckless in the eyes of the law. For example, speeding in a car after consuming alcohol may not be "reckless" in the eyes of the law even though you may ultimately be convicted of DWI. Other elements should be present and "fleshed out" in the accusation. In the scenario above, one may be driving dangerously, but where there other cars or pedestrians in the street? Did the accused almost hit them? How fast was he or she speeding? What were the road conditions? There are other important facts before one's actions give rise to at least a "substantial risk" of not merely a small injury, but serious physical injury or a grave risk of death.

Keeping with the theme of what constitutes a the crime of Reckless Endangerment in New York, a question that is often addressed is whether or not factual impossibility is a defense to the crime in New York of Reckless Endangerment in the Second or First Degree. That answer is generally yes. A great non-legal way to look at this is as follows:

Person "A" fires a gun into a room. He actually believe that room is crowded full of people at a meeting. However, it is an empty room. Nobody is there. Certainly ill advised, his actions would not necessarily be reckless as there is no "substantial risk" or "depraved indifference" for human life where there is no risk of either "serious physical injury" or death. If nobody is there, there can be no risk and no injury. This is a very base definition of the legal concept of "Factual Impossibility."

According to the Court of Appeals, New York's top court, "Factual Impossibility" is a defense to Reckless Endangerment in the First and Second Degrees. See People v. Galatro, 84 N.Y.2d 160 (1994). Because the level of the risk on the part of the accused determines the level of the offense, if factually there can be no risk because it is impossible, then there can be no crime. See People v. Davis 72 N.Y.2d 32 (1988). As addressed in Davis, if a gun is inoperable and cannot fire a bullet, pointing that gun at someone cannot establish the requisite risk (although, other crimes may be perpetrated, ie, if the weapon is brandished in a robbery it can still raise the level of the felony offense even if the gun is ultimately found to be inoperable.).

The above cases merely touch on this concept of "Factual Impossibility." Even if there is this impossibility as to Reckless Endangerment, it does not meant that other crimes cannot be established by the prosecution. Moreover, even though you may deem something factually impossible, a court, prosecutor or jury may disagree.

For further information on the crime of Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 120.25) and Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 120.20), please follow the highlighted links. A brief factual/legal Reckless Endangerment case analysis regarding the charges against JetBlue's Steven Slater can be found on the respective link as well. Additional information on different statutes of the New York Penal Law, legal decisions and cases in the news can be found on Crotty Saland PC's New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com).

Representing those investigated and accused through the New York City area, the partners at Crotty Saland PC served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorneys office prior to serving their clients as New York criminal defense attorneys.

Although it rears its head in other areas of New York criminal law, violations of a defendant's right to counsel (right to remain silent) seem disproportionately greater in the area of New York graffiti crimes including Making Graffiti (New York Penal Law 145.60), Criminal Mischief (New York Penal Law 145.00) and Possession of Graffiti Instruments (New York Penal Law 145.65). While I cannot base my opinion on any scientific data, as a New York graffiti crimes criminal defense lawyer, I have litigated and addressed the issues regarding right to counsel numerous times in this specific arena. In fact, one of the New York City District Attorney's Offices recently dropped five of six cases against our client after I successfully argued that the client's right to counsel was violated by the New York City Police Department's Vandalism (Vandal) Squad. The argument was based in the doctrine of "Related Matters."

In the case mentioned above, our client had been arrested by police after he was allegedly observed with a spray paint can. A person had called indicating someone was in the process of spray painting. Our client was alleged to have made a particular tag at that location. Weeks later, after he was arraigned and had been assigned counsel, but had yet to retain Crotty Saland PC, the Vandal Squad stopped our client on the street and confronted him with photographs. These photographs were of the same alleged tag at other locations. During his street interrogation by about six officers and detectives from the Vandal Squad, our client "admitted" to spraying the tag at the other locations. As a result, he was once again arrested and charged with five new cases regarding the same tag as the first arrest that was currently pending in criminal court.

Beyond our client's assertion that he was threatened into admitting that he had made the tags (there was corroboration by a witness as to part of the stop and interrogation), the argument used to successfully defeat these cases was not necessarily a factual one, but a legal one.

Continue reading "Graffiti Crimes & Making Graffiti in New York: The "Related Matters" Criminal Defense & Right To Counsel" »

Make no mistake about it. If you "dine and dash," leave a Manhattan cab driver high and dry without paying, jump a turnstile in Brooklyn or even use cable without permission, you will be either arrested or issued a NY Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) for Theft of Services pursuant to New York Penal Law 165.15. If you are a New York City teacher or or any other person using a student or senior MetroCard, you will will face the same charge as well. Assuming you did not have permission to receive the services without paying, the conversation you have regarding Theft of Services (NY PL 165.15) with your New York criminal defense attorney or lawyer will be fairly simple. Not a DNA case, this crime is often summed up as either a misunderstanding between you and the victim or the result of a plainly stupid move on your part. The problem is, regardless of whether you were issued a New York Desk Appearance Ticket or arrested, if you are convicted of Theft of Services you will have a criminal record that will not be expunged or merely go away.

Potential Punishment & Collateral Consequences of Theft of Services (NY Penal Law 165.15)

An "A" misdemeanor, a conviction for Theft of Services or any crime will result in a criminal record. Compounding matters, a conviction for this offense is punishable by up to one year in prison. Having said that, practical punishment and potential punishment are not one in the same. Assuming the Theft of Services allegations does not include other crimes such as New York Grand Larceny, for example, defrauding the cab driver out of $10 or the restaurant out of $30 will not likely land you behind bars. Without other compounding factors, jail is not a usual outcome in New York City.

The greater issue, and one which often compels people to consult with experienced criminal defense attorneys in New York, is what will happen if you plea to a violation and thereby avoid a criminal record. In other words, if the District Attorney's Office makes you an offer of a violation such as a Disorderly Conduct, is this a type of disposition that you should accept and, if so, are there any collateral consequences?

While each case is as unique as the individual accused of perpetrating the particular crime, collateral consequences can be devastating whether you are charged with Theft of Services (NY PL 165.15) in Queens, Shoplifting / Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25) in Manhattan, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument (NY PL 170.20) in Brooklyn or any other offense. For example, are you required to report an arrest or a plea, of any type, to your employer? If so, what are the grounds for your dismissal? Must a conviction be that of a crime or will a violation also terminate your employment? Beyond your direct employer, are there certification or licensing requirements that require you to report a plea even if it is non criminal? If so, what, if anything, should you do?

Beyond the above mentioned issues, what will happen to your "record?" Will it remain blemish free and clean? While a plea to a Disorderly Conduct should be sealed, it is far from atypical to have these non criminal dispositions pop up on background checks. Not only is it possible that the violation will be revealed, but the underlying or original arrest charge of Theft of Services, Petit Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument or any other crime. The last thing anyone wants is to believe that the case has been resolved to later find out that their potential employer or licensing agency has found out about it and is questioning an arrest from years before.

While this blog entry is not a substitute for an in depth discussion with your New York criminal defense attorney, it should give you the foundation to have that conversation. Not only may you decide to discuss potential dispositions such as Disorderly Conduct, but the better option of an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal. Moreover, there may be both legal and procedural ways to beat the case and a plea is not something you should consider pursuing.

For further information such as criminal statutes and the New York Penal Law, legal decisions, legal analysis and newsworthy cases dealing with the crimes of Theft of Services (NY PL 165.15), Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25), Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument (NY PL 170.20) and Desk Appearance Tickets, please review the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog at NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com and more specifically the topic areas of New York Theft Offenses, New York Fraud Related Offenses and New York Desk Appearance Tickets. Additional information can be found on the respective links for New York Desk Appearance Tickets and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument on the Crotty Saland PC webpage and new-york-lawyers.org.

The New York criminal defense lawyers and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC represent individuals accused or and arrested for all crimes from Manhattan to Brooklyn, Queens to Westchester and the New York City region.

According to various reports, David Mejias, the Democrat New York State Senate candidate running against Republican Senator Kemp Hannon in Long Island's 6th Senate District, was arrested earlier today after an alleged "domestic type" incident involving an ex-girlfriend. Mr. Mejias is charged with multiple misdemeanors including Menacing in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 120.14), Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 120.20) and Stalking in the Third Degree. These crimes are all "A" misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in jail. While bail was set at $1000, District Attorney Kathleen Rice appointed a special prosecutor due to her relationship with the defendant.

It is alleged that Mr. Mejias, the defendant, drove past his ex-girlfriend and abruptly stopped his vehicle. This caused the ex-girlfriend, the alleged victim / complainant, to do the same with her car. At that point it is further alleged that Mr. Mejias exited his vehicle and and yelled and screamed as he approached the alleged victim. The complainant was able to drive away, but the defendant is alleged to have followed her. After she was able to elude the accused, the ex-girlfriend reported the case to the police and the police arrested Mr. Mejias.

I have blogged numerous times in the past regarding the crime of Reckless Endangerment. As I have stressed, an accusation is merely just that...an accusation and not evidence of guilt. For this particular charge, the prosecution must establish that the defendant acted so recklessly that he created a substantial risk of serious physical injury. In other words, the risk must not merely be a possible one, but a substantial one while the potential injury must be more than merely a bump or bruise. Even if Mr. Mejias' actions were an exhibition of extremely poor judgment, did his reckless action raise to the level where there was a risk of serious physical injury? How fast were they driving? Where there other cars on the road? Was the ex-wearing a seat belt? If so, was the risk diminished? Again, even if Mr. Mejias did drive in this manner and put his ex-girlfriend at risk, was that risk substantial and did it create the potential for serious physical injury?

Menacing in the Second Degree might pose a more difficult problem for the defendant. According to the law, if Mr. Mejias repeatedly followed this ex-girlfriend or engaged in a course of conduct or repeatedly committed acts over a period of time intentionally placing or attempting to place her in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death, then he would be guilty of this crime. There are case decisions that do establish that "course of conduct" need not be over days or weeks, but significantly less time. Having said that, did his alleged yells (what was he screaming and was he threatening to hurt her?) place her in fear of physical injury or worse? Alternative, was she merely annoyed, aggravated or concerned for reasons beyond this physical danger?

Stalking in the Third Degree is similar to Menacing in the Second Degree (assuming the above Menacing offense is the actual subsection charged). Mr. Mejias would be guilty of Stalking if with intent to harass, annoy or alarm his ex-girlfriend, Mr. Mejias intentionally engaged in a course of conduct (yelling, following with car, etc.) directed at his ex-girlfriend which is likely to cause her to reasonably fear physical injury or serious physical injury, the commission of a sex offense against, or her kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment or death of a member of of her immediate family.

It is interesting to note, that the New York State Senate recently expelled one of its members, Hiram Monserrate, after he was convicted of a "domestic" crime of a reckless nature that involved his girlfriend. A Queens County Supreme Court Judge found the former Senator and current Assembly candidate guilty of Reckless Assault in the Third Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 120.00(2). Currently, Kevin Parker, a Brooklyn New York State Senator, is facing felony charges in Brooklyn Supreme Court related to his alleged reckless and intentional acts of Criminal Mischief and Assault. These acts are not alleged to have been "domestic" in nature or involve a current or former girlfriend.

For further information on the crime of Reckless Endangerment and Menacing, including the New York Penal Law as well as legal decisions, please follow the highlighted links (more in depth analysis of Reckless Endangerment can be found in relation to Jet Blue's Steven Slater). Additional information on these crimes can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com) by searching for these terms and other terms.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors.