New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

If your arrest for Shoplifting in Manhattan or issuance of a Shoplifting Desk Appearance Ticket in Brooklyn was not enough, a store security guard just tried to intimidate you into forking over hundreds of dollars to settle a future suit against you by the retailer. Obviously, you have consulted with a New York Shoplifting lawyer who has experience representing clients arrested for Petit Larceny (New York Penal Law 155.25) and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree (New York Penal Law 165.40). During that discussion with your New York criminal defense attorney you addressed the criminal consequences of a conviction or plea and collateral consequences to certain dispositions, but you may have forgotten to have a conversation regarding the civil ramifications.

New York General Obligations Law Section 11-105 is the statute in New York State that gives retailers the authority to pursue civil actions against those arrested for or accused of crimes such as Shoplifting. It is extremely important to note, for a retailer to pursue this remedy for your allegedly criminal conduct, the retailer does not have to wait for a conviction or resolution of the case. In fact, it is fairly typical for store security officers to shove an agreement to pay a fine in the face of a detained person. They then prey on this fear to force or coerce that person to pay a ridiculous fine...even if he or she is innocent. Unfortunately, the law allows retailers to collect up to five times the value of the stolen property or $500 (whichever is greater).

If you survived being bullied into paying this fine, whether or not you do so in the future is something you should discuss with your New York criminal defense attorney. Will a suit against you be filed? What is the likelihood? If one is filed and you do not respond, will a judgment be entered against you? How will this impact your credit? Will lawyers or a collection agency pursue you? Again, these are questions you should be asking your counsel who should not only be discussing criminal and collateral consequences of a Shoplifting arrest or Desk Appearance Ticket, but civil ones as well.

For in depth information on the laws of New York Desk Appearance Tickets, Shoplifting in New York and related criminal issues, follow the respective links. Additional information on criminal statutes in New York, legal decisions and cases in the press, is located on Crotty Saland PC's New York Criminal Lawyer Blog. A search for "Shoplifting," "Petit Larceny," "155.25" and "165.40" will reveal a wealth of information for those arrested for Shoplifting in New York City and State.

Representing those arrested and issued Desk Appearance Tickets for Shoplifting throughout the New York City area, the founding New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC served as Assistant District Attorney's in Manhattan prior to starting the firm.

New York DWI and DUI Laws (Driving While Intoxicated and Driving Under the Influence) are codified in the Vehicle and Traffic Law. More specifically, New York VTL section 1192 is where the various charges for drunk driving can be found. Regardless of the particular subsection, an experienced New York DWI attorney will tell you that the critical element of any DWI or DUI charge is that the person accused must be "operating" the motor vehicle. This operation does not mean the person must actually be driving the vehicle. In other words, the car need not be moving down the street or highway as the defendant is applying the gas and steering the vehicle.

To better understand the difference between "driving" and "operating," consult with your New York DWI lawyer who can explain the charges against you and how the evidence in your case does or does not fall within the bounds of the law. Having said that, the following article may be a starting point to educate yourself so you can vet your case with your counsel and he or she can properly advise you.

Operation of a Motor Vehicle

While driving a motor vehicle is certainly operating the same, if the engine is running, but the automobile is not in motion, is it being operated? For example, if it is a bitter cold night and you decide to sleep off your intoxication in your car and you turn the engine on to pump up the heat, are you operating the vehicle as it is sits idling? Certainly, the car is not in motion and it is not being driven. So are you operating that car?

Assuming your case went to trial, a judge will substantially instruct a jury (by utilizing the New York jury instructions revised in 2008) as follows:

"A person also operates a motor vehicle when such person is sitting behind the wheel of a motor vehicle for the purpose of placing the vehicle in motion, and when the motor vehicle is moving, or even if it is not moving, the engine is running."

The jury instructions further address "operating" in a footnote for the court's review:

"The purpose of the revision was to provide a clearer definition of 'operates' by removing the language 'for the purpose of placing it in operation' and replacing such language with 'for the purpose of placing the vehicle in motion.' See People v Alamo, 34 NY2d 453, 458 (1974); People v Marriott, 37 AD2d 868 (3d Dept. 1971); People v. O'Connor, 159 Misc.2d 1072, 1074-1075 (Dist.Ct., Suffolk, 1994). See also People v. Prescott, 95 NY2d 655, 662 (2001)."

As you can tell from reading this excerpt, the "old" law defined "operation" as the "purpose of placing it in operation." The new instructions changed the definition to one that specifically requires putting the vehicle into motion. The difference is clear and critical. The new language requires that your intent be to not merely have the car running, but to actually have the intent to put the vehicle in motion, ie, to drive the automobile.

Don't get too excited about the above jury instruction and case law. While the law requires that "operation" include an intent to put the vehicle in motion and the prosecution must prove this element beyond a reasonable doubt, merely stating that you lacked the intent will likely not be convincing. It is the facts and evidence before the court and jury that will be crucial. Was the car in a parking space on the street? Had the steering wheel or tires been moved to point outward? Was the heat running? Was your seat belt on? What did you say at the time of your arrest, if anything? While the law may be on your side, your New York DWI lawyer will still want and need corroboration of your intent in some capacity. Just stating you had no intent to move the vehicle may not be enough even though the prosecution has all of the burden. Regardless, an experienced New York DWI and DUI attorney will do his or her best to craft a defense around this intent (or lack of thereof).

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent clients accused of DWI and other crimes throughout the New York City region. For additional information on DWI and DUI laws as well as other New York Penal Law statutes, legal decisions and cases in the news, please review the Crotty Saland PC website and the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com).

Crotty Saland PC, a New York white collar criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, is pleased to announced a recent "victory" and "top result" on behalf of a client charged with Embezzlement Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 155.35) and Identity Theft in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 190.80). Our client, an accountant and former board member for a not-for-profit organization in New York City, faced up to seven years in prison on each charge after prosecutors alleged that he had opened up a line of credit in a board member's name. The District Attorney's Office further claimed that our client used the board member's information to maintain that line of credit. Ultimately, prosecutors concluded that our client funneled $25,000 from the bank for his own use.

Despite the allegations of Identity Theft as a means to perpetrate the Grand Larceny and Embezzlement, we successfully argued that the complainant had actually given our client the authority to open the account many years earlier even though the complainant initially denied this. Fortunately, we were able to find some corroboration to this defense. Ultimately, after a few months of wrangling, prosecutors agreed to dismiss the felony Identity Theft charge against our client and reduce the felony Grand Larceny charge to one misdemeanor count of Petit Larceny (the "shoplifting statute"). Although our client ultimately pleaded to the Petit Larceny in full satisfaction of all of the allegations against him, our client avoided the career ending and life altering collateral consequences of a felony conviction. Moreover, he did not have to make any restitution as part of his plea. Make no mistake. A misdemeanor is still a crime, but not as devastating as a felony with the associated maximum of seven years in state prison and restitution in the amount of $25,000.

For extensive information on Identity Theft, New York Grand Larceny, New York Embezzlement laws and crimes and case results, please follow the highlighted links. Additional information, including analysis of cases in the news, legal decisions and criminal statutes, is available on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com). A New York "related crime" Embezzlement primer can be found through the respective link as well.

Crotty Saland PC, a New York City based white collar criminal defense practice, represents individuals accused of white collar crimes throughout the NYC region. Crotty Saland PC was founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors and has obtained favorable results for our clients in white collar criminal allegations. Elizabeth Crotty served in the Trial Division and Investigation Division while Jeremy Saland served in the Trial Division as well as the Identity Theft Major Case Section.

As I have noted in earlier entries, a misdemeanor Assault in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 120.00) can be "bumped up" to a felony Assault in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 120.05(2)) if the alleged perpetrator uses a "dangerous instrument." As a New York criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor, I have seen various non-threatening items qualify as "dangerous instruments" where there is really nothing dangerous about them. Unfortunately, even these items, if used in the violent context, can mean the difference between facing up to one year in jail or seven years in state prison.

Briefly, pursuant to New York Penal Law 120.00(1), if a person intentionally causes physical injury to another (substantial pain or physical impairment), then that person is likely guilty of this misdemeanor. However, if a person uses a "deadly weapon" or a "dangerous instrument," then the crime becomes more serious even if the injury is the exact same. Pursuant to Assault in the Second Degree, New York Penal Law 120.05(2), a person is guilty of this crime when he or she intends to cause physical injury to another person by using a "deadly weapon" or "dangerous instrument."

Defining Dangerous Instrument

The law defines "dangerous instrument" as any type of object or substance. "Dangerous instrument" means any instrument, article or substance, which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing a serious physical injury or even death.

A question that New York criminal defense lawyers, prosecutors and judges often face, however, is for practical purposes, what type of instrument fits this definition? A shoe? A garbage pail? A knife? How about a Sony Playstation?

While it might seem comical to ask such a hypothetical, a Richmand County (Staten Island) Criminal Court Judge just ruled on this exact issue. In People v. Jermaine Scott, 2010RI002291, the defendant was alleged to have intentionally struck a woman on her head with the Sony Playstation gaming console during a fight. After reviewing the law, the court found that the Playstation console was a dangerous instrument in this context. The court reasoned:

"It is...the manner in which the instrument is used, not its inherent nature, which makes an object a dangerous instrument. People v. Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113 (1981); People v. Wilkerson, 184 Misc.2d 949 (Crim. Ct. New York Co. 2000). An innocuous object intentionally used to injure or kill is, therefore, a dangerous instrument pursuant to statute. People v. Krotoszynski, 43 A.D.3d 450 (2nd Dept. 2007) (television remote control used as a dangerous instrument)."

Obviously, the law is clear. The instrument in question need not be a gun or a knife, but something less threatening in nature as long as it is capable of and threatened to be used in a manner to cause serious physical injury or death.

For additional information on the laws regarding New York Assault crimes and New York Weapon laws, please follow the highlighted links. Additional information ranging from legal decisions to statutes can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog at NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com

Founded by two New York criminal defense lawyers and former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC represents clients from criminal investigations and arrests through hearings and trials in New York City and the suburban counties.

Starting December 15, 2010, if you are convicted of DWI or DUI (Driving While Intoxicated) in Westchester County, New York, you will have another collateral consequence to deal with beyond your criminal record. Whether it is in White Plains, Yonkers, Mt. Kisco or any other municipality, if you are arrested by a Westchester County Police Officer and you are convicted of any DWI crime found within VTL 1192, a local allow permits the seizure of your vehicle. To be clear, the law only applies to DWI convictions associated with the Westchester County Police as opposed to Driving While Ability Impaired (a violation and not a crime) or arrests made by local municipal police officers or New York State Troopers.

It remains to be seen whether this law will be challenged and many issues are certain to arise.

For extensive information on New York State DWI laws, please follow the highlighted link. Additional information on New York DWIs and other crimes as well as legal decisions and commentary on cases in the news, go to the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients in DWI arrests and other criminal matters throughout the New York City region. Prior to starting the firm, both founding New York DWI lawyers served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

According to the New York Post, Heidi Jones, WABC's weatherwoman and meteorologist on channel 7, was arrested after she claimed she had been raped this past fall. It is alleged that Ms. Jones claimed that a man had tried to drag her into an area of Central Park in Manhattan, but failed after people passing by came to her aid. It is alleged that the police became suspicious after it took Ms. Jones approximately two months to report the incident and inconsistencies developed in her story after being questioned multiple times.

Based on the New York Post's report, it appears that Ms. Jones is charged with New York Penal Law section 240.50(3)(a) - Falsely Reporting an Incident. Although the article does not specifically mention this section and the case information is not on the New York State Court System website, New York Penal Law 240.50(3) states in pertinent part:

A person is guilty of Falsely Reporting an Incident in the Third Degree when, knowing the information reported, conveyed or circulated to be false or baseless, she gratuitously reports to a law enforcement officer or agency the alleged occurrence of an offense or incident which did not in fact occur.

Falsely Reporting an Incident in the Third Degree is an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. Despite this potential punishment, it is highly unlikely Ms. Jones would see any time on Rikers Island. Her criminal lawyer will likely mitigate her conduct by arguing that no specific person was identified or arrested, Ms. Jones has no criminal record and that Ms. Jones was either suffering from or dealing with personal or emotional issues at the time of the alleged incident. It is even possible that with the right approach, Ms. Jones avoids a criminal conviction for her alleged false rape claim. Her status as a TV anchor is an entirely different matter all together.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. The New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused from investigation to trial throughout the New York City region. Additional information on criminal statutes, legal decisions and cases in the news can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

It is unquestionably the best outcome or as close as one can get. Crotty Saland PC, a Manhattan based criminal defense firm founded by two New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors, obtained a dismissal of all charges against a client accused of Assault in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 120.00). Our client, a doctor, was alleged to have "pummeled" another man in a dog run after a dispute involving their dogs. The complainant had two alleged "witnesses," actually friends, who claimed they saw the entire incident. Although the complainant had no visible injuries (we requested picture numerous times to no avail) and was seen in fine health the following day by witnesses not tied to either party, the prosecution was bent on going forward. Compounding matters, the complainant's personal injury attorney called our client within days to see if our client wanted to settle to avoid a lawsuit (he received a resounding "no").

Fortunately, at least three or four independent witnesses (not friends with either party) saw the incident and asserted that our client never struck anyone. Despite providing these witnesses to the prosecution, the District Attorney's Office only offered a Harassment violation. Because our client did no wrong and the complainant saw him as a deep pocket for his lawsuit (not only did the "victim" fail to tell the prosecution he was suing, our investigation revealed this was not the first time he sued someone else or was involved in litigation), our client refused this offer.

As the case proceeded in its regular course, Crotty Saland PC filed motions to challenge the facial sufficiency of the Assault charges against our client as well as to challenge certain evidence. Although the prosecution dug their heals in an amateur fashion, we believed there were legal grounds for this dismissal...and we were right. Despite the prosecutions inability to see the real facts from independent witnesses and to have the courage to dismiss the case, the court found the legal basis for what we firmly believed should have been the outcome all along - the dismissal of the entire criminal case.

While each case is unique and Crotty Saland PC cannot guarantee future results based on this case, one thing is clear. The New York criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland PC strive to provide our clients with top results and will aggressively fight within the bounds of the law to do so.

For further information about Crotty Saland PC, please go to our website at new-york-lawyers.org. Additional information about Assault in the Third Degree and violent crimes can be found there as well or on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com) where extensive information about the New York Penal Law, legal decision and newsworthy cases can be found.

The New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent clients in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and throughout the rest of New York City and the region.

Adam Bradley, the mayor of White Plains New York and a former New York State assemblyman, was convicted after a bench or "judge" trial in White Plains. Initially charged with Assault in the Third Degree, Witness Tampering and Criminal Contempt, a judge convicted Mayor Bradley of Criminal Contempt, Attempted Assault and Harassment. Mayor Bradley faces up to one year in jail on the Criminal Contempt, ninety days in jail on the Attempted Assault and fifteen days in jail on the Harassment conviction. Although there is no minimum term of incarceration (Mayor Bradley may get no jail at all), if Mayor Bradley is sentenced to jail his sentences would run concurrent and not consecutive.

The charge of contempt stems from the initial allegation that there was contact by Mayor Bradley with his wife, Fumiko. When an order of protection or restraining order is in place, the order specifies or limits some or all contact with the complainant by the defendant. If, for example, there was a full order of protection limiting any contact with a complainant, a violation or contempt would technically occur even if the complainant decided to ignore the order and talk to or be with the defendant. A complainant's willingness to ignore an order of protection issued by a court is no defense for the accused to continue or maintain contact. In part, this is because the order of protection is a court order and not subject to the desire of the complainant barring an amendment of that order.

New York Penal Law section 110 is the "Attempt" section of the criminal code. Whenever one is charged with a completed crime, such as Assault in the Third Degree, a jury or judge can find that person not guilty of the completed crime, but guilty of the lesser included offense based on the theory that he or she was unable to complete that crime. A simple way to look at this is if one punched another person in the face and broke his or her nose and had the intent to cause that person substantial pain, then the completed crime of Assault in the Third Degree would be the likely charge. If one's intent was the exact same, but one swung and missed, then the crime would be an Attempted Assault in the Third Degree. For legal purposes, when one is convicted of the attempt as opposed to the completed crime, the degree or severity of the offense is knocked down one level. Here, instead of an "A" misdemeanor, the crime that the judge convicted Mayor Bradley for was a lesser "B" misdemeanor.

Lastly, Harassment is a violation in the New York Penal Law. A violation is an offense, but not a crime. If this was the only offense for which he was found guilty, the Harassment conviction would not result in a criminal record. Obviously, that is not the case for Mayor Bradley.

Only time will tell what the judge will sentence Mayor Bradley to or whether or not he will soon be known as former Mayor Bradley. Sadly, Mayor Bradley now joins Hiram Monserrate, and to a lesser extent Senator Kevin Parker, as a political leader convicted of misdemeanors over the past year.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. For further information on criminal statutes, legal decisions and newsworthy cases, please review the Crotty Saland PC website or the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

According to the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, a Manhattan based prosecutors office with jurisdiction over narcotic and drug crimes throughout New York City, five Columbia University students were arrested and charged with selling drugs (Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree - New York Penal Law 220.39 & 220.40), drug possession (Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree - New York Penal Law 220.16) and other crimes relating to drugs and marijuana.

"Operation Ivy League" resulted in the arrest of Christopher Coles, Harrison David, Adam Klein, Jose Stephan Perez, a/k/a, Stephan Vincenzo, and Michael Wymbs. It is alleged that over the past few months undercover police officers purchased $11,000 worth of cocaine, marijuana, LSD and Adderall from dorm rooms and fraternity houses. It is further alleged that as many as 31 drug sales took place at the Alpha Epsilon Pi, Pi Kappa Alpha and Psi Upsilon fraternity houses.

Beyond getting kicked out of school and facing the wrath of their parents, the young men face a minimum of 1 to 9 years in prison as first time offenders. If the sales transpired on school grounds, then the minimum term of incarceration increases to 2 years in state prison. Regardless, 1 to 2 years of post release supervision is mandatory for any conviction.

For additional information on New York drug crimes and New York drug laws, please follow either of the highlighted links. To review the New York drug sentencing guidelines, please follow the respective link. Further information on legal decisions, news worthy cases and criminal statutes can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. The New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent clients in New York City and beyond.

According to Staten Island District Attorney Dan Donovan, a jury convicted Kevin Parker, a New York State Senator from Brooklyn, New York, on two counts of Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree. "A" misdemeanors, Senator Parker faces up to one year in jail (Rikers Island) on each count. It is highly unlikely Senator Parker would receive the maximum one year or that the sentences would run consecutive. Former New York State Senator Hiram Monserrate was convicted of Assault in the Third Degree during the 2008 to 2010 term.

Not considered a violent crime, Criminal Mischief generally occurs when one intentionally damages property of another without permission or authority. If the damage reaches a certain level, then the degree of the crime increase from a misdemeanor to a felony. Any damage, regardless of how insignificant, can be the basis of a Criminal Mischief conviction.

Although Senator Parker has the dubious distinction of joining former Senator Monserrate as a sitting legislator to be convicted after trial for a misdemeanor, the collateral consequences to Senator Parker's career have yet to play out. I am happy to let another blogger ponder and contemplate that issue on his or her own time.

For extensive information on the crime of Criminal Mischief, please follow the highlighted links above. For additional information on this and other crimes as well as legal decisions and newsworthy cases, please read the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog and search the blog for "Criminal Mischief."

Founded by two New York criminal lawyers who served under Robert Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Crotty Saland PC represents the accused throughout the New York City region from investigation through hearings and trial.

Hao "Howie" Wang, a JPMorgan Chase banker formerly employed at a Manhattan branch, was arrested and arraigned in New York County Supreme Court earlier today in connection with an alleged theft of over $1 million. According to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., Mr. Wang stole the identities of four clients to get his own personal bank bail out. Mr. Wang is charged with one count of Grand Larceny in the First Degree (NY PL 155.42), four counts ofGrand Larceny in the Second Degree (NY PL 155.40), one count ofGrand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35), twelve counts ofIdentity Theft in the First Degree (NY PL 190.80), four counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree (NY PL 175.10), five counts of Forgery in the Second Degree (NY PL 170.15), and one count of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree. If convicted, Mr. Wang faces up to 25 years in prison for Grand Larceny in the First Degree, 15 years in prison for Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, 7 years in prison for Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Identity Theft in the First Degree and Forgery in the Second Degree, and 4 years in prison for Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree and Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree.

Arrested in November at Newark Airport, it is alleged that Mr. Wang perpetrated his scheme by using clients' information to open accounts or obtain loans that he would eventually use. Other than buying himself a $46,000 watch, it is alleged that most of this money was transferred overseas where Mr. Wang may have been heading at the time of his arrest.

DA Vance's predecessor, Robert Morgenthau, always stressed the importance of fighting crime in the suites as well as the streets. DA Vance appears to be continuing that tradition by not only prosecuting white collar and street crimes, but combining the two as displayed with his office's recent "take down" of scheming cab drivers. It would not surprise me if the Manhattan District Attorney's Office smokes out other individuals tied to Mr. Wang's scheme. Time, something Mr. Wang has, will tell just that.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. While past success cannot guarantee future outcomes, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC have had tremendous results representing clients in white collar fraud allegations ranging from the tens of thousands to millions of dollars in the New York City area.

For for extensive information on Grand Larceny, Forgery, Identity Theft and Falsifying Business Records, please follow the highlighted links above. Additional legal information, including criminal statutes, court decisions and newsworthy cases, can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com).

Often times confused with Resisting Arrest (New York Penal Law 205.30), Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 195.05), occurs when a person intentionally obstructs the administration of law or attempts to prevent a public servant, such as a police officer, from performing an official function. This obstruction can be through intimidation, physical force or any independent unlawful act. In other words, if the police are trying to make a lawful arrest of another person and you prevent them from doing so by blocking the police or pushing them away, this charge would likely be applicable. If the police were trying t make an arrest of you and you conducted yourself in the same manner, the likely charge would be Resisting Arrest. Both crimes are "A" misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in jail. In Manhattan, Brooklyn or any other location in New York City, the one year in jail would be served on Rikers Island.

An interesting question that will be addressed in this blog entry is whether or not words alone can create a sufficient obstruction to sustain the charges of Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree. Fortunately, a recent decision may help shed light on this issue.

In People v. Theo Knight (2010NY052516), a Manhattan Criminal Court Judge found a criminal court complaint facially sufficient (meaning that the charging complaint would not be dismissed and made out all the elements of the crime) where the prosecution had charged the defendant with Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree. In the Knight case, the prosecution alleged that the defendant was at the location where marijuana was being sold by an individual who was ultimately not apprehended. As the detectives approached, the complaint stated that the defendant received a phone call and then yelled to the un-apprehended individual to "go in the building." As a result, the un-apprehended man who was allegedly selling marijuana was not arrested. Instead, the police arrested Mr. Knight. The question raised before the court was whether or not the words by themselves were sufficient to establish the elements of New York Penal Law 195.05.

In finding that the complaint against the defendant was sufficient, the court stated:

"In the instant case, the accusatory instrument alleges facts showing that defendant was present at a place where police activity was apparent: another individual was being arrested; defendant acknowledges that an officer was approaching. Defendant yelled a warning to the un-apprehended person, frustrating the arresting officer's efforts. These facts allege a prima facie case of obstructing governmental administration...While defendant's words may have been innocuous at another location under other circumstances, his geographical presence at a place where an arrest was imminent change the nature of his utterance to a criminal act."

The answer is clear. Words alone may form the basis and satisfy the elements of the charge of Obstructing Governmental Administration in the Second Degree as long as other factors are present. Whether those factors are present in your particular case is something you should discuss with an experienced New York criminal defense attorney.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused throughout the New York City region. For extensive information on New York criminal law as well as legal decisions and cases in the news, please review the Crotty Saland PC website and the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com).