New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

While no two cases are the same, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC have extensive experience representing those accused of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (New York Penal Law 220.03). In fact, the founding partners at Crotty Saland PC have experience on both sides of the law. Prior to starting the firm, both of our founding New York criminal defense lawyers served as Assistant District Attorney's in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office where they prosecuted individuals for misdemeanor and felony drug possession and sale.

Whether you are arrested for possessing cocaine, heroin, crack, oxycodone or a "designer drug," often times the police will issue a New York Desk Appearance Ticket to first time offenders charging them with NY PL 220.03. An "A" misdemeanor, this offense is punishable by up to one year in jail. In the event you are arrested and given a Desk Appearance Ticket in Manhattan for possessing a controlled substance, you will be required to appear at either 100 Centre Street or Midtown Community Court at 314 West 54th Street. Regardless, the charges are the same as if you had been arrested and held overnight to see a judge. Do not be under the impression that a Desk Appearance Ticket for possessing a controlled substance (NY PL 220.03) is not a serious matter. If you do not appear in court as required, a bench warrant will likely be issued for your arrest.

Potential Offers for First Time Offenders in Manhattan Criminal Court

As noted above, no two cases are the same. Having said that, prosecutors in Manhattan (New York County) often have general guidelines that they follow in first time arrests for Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree (New York Penal Law 220.03). Assuming you in fact are a first time offender, you are not charged with Resisting Arrest, Obstruction of Governmental Administration, Tampering with Evidence for trying to destroy the drugs or any other offense, the likely offer will be a Disorderly Conduct pursuant to New York Penal Law 240.20. It is important to note, however, that Desk Appearance Tickets charge only one offense, but prosecutors can charge additional crimes when you are arraigned on a criminal complaint in court. Moreover, there may be other factors that come into play before a offer may be made, including, but not limited to, the potential weight of the drugs, whereby more investigation may needed. Not a crime, a plea to Disorderly Conduct will not give you a criminal record.

Although the above scenario for a first time offender charged with NY PL 220.03 sounds relatively good and would not give that person a criminal record, there are more profound ramifications beyond the criminal realm. Disorderly Conduct pleas are ultimately sealed. This means there should be no public record that someone could dig up on you by going to court. However, as a practical matter, a significant amount of these violations are not sealed or sealed improperly. As I have mentioned in the past, there has been at least one high profile lawsuit (there may be many more) involving New York State. The basis of that lawsuit was that a Disorderly Conduct and underlying arrest was revealed after an individual applied for and was denied a job at a department store.

In my own personal experience as a New York criminal defense attorney, I have received countless emails and phone calls from people who are concerned or distraught that an employer's background check revealed their Disorderly Conduct from years ago as well as their underlying misdemeanor arrest of Petit Larceny for shoplifting, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument for having a fake ID or Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance for possessing drugs for personal use. Obviously, even though it is not a criminal disposition, accepting a Disorderly Conduct could be devastating to a college student with an open future or any individual who might be subject to a background check for employment or promotions such as a teacher, financial analyst or any other professional.

Beyond the reality that this Disorderly Conduct may be found out by those who are subject to background checks and certifications or professional licenses, those individuals who are not citizens also may have issues. Although a violation is not a "crime of moral terpitude," an immigration attorney can be consulted to discuss what ramifications a Disorderly Conduct may have on your current or future status in the United States.

If Not a Disorderly Conduct, Then What?

I generally advise my clients that in lieu of just accepting the prosecution's offer of a Disorderly Conduct, we should fight the case in an attempt to obtain an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD). I say "generally," because no two cases are alike and each set of facts and evidence requires a unique analysis with the criminal defense attorney that you hire and consult with.

Assuming an ACD is attainable, the benefits far outweigh the benefits of a Disorderly Conduct with one major exception. The most significant benefit of an ACD over a Disorderly Conduct is that not only will the case be sealed, but it will be dismissed as well. Six months after the initial adjournment, the case, as a matter of law, will be dismissed. Only in limited circumstances will evidence or the fact of the arrest appear (discuss with your criminal defense attorney when the underlying arrest may be revealed). The problem for some people is the six month waiting period. A disorderly conduct is resolved upon the plea (and whatever conditions the court requires).

A Word (or Words) of Warning

As I keep on noting, and will continue to do so, no two cases are alike. While there are general guidelines that are often followed by prosecutors, there is no guarantee an offer will be made to you even if this is your first offense. Whether you are arrested and processed through the system or issued a Desk Appearance Ticket, consult with your counsel, identify a defense that will either challenge the evidence or mitigate your conduct and implement that defense to protect your future.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC is a New York law firm focused on defending clients against criminal allegations. The New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused throughout the New York City region.

Extensive information on Desk Appearance Tickets as well as New York Drug Crimes can be found through the associated links or on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com) where legal analysis of criminal statutes, case decisions and newsworthy cases can be found.

Tampering with a Witness, a crime in New York State punishable by as "little" as up to one year in jail and as much as up to twenty five years in state prison, is an offense the prosecutors and the courts take extremely seriously. From New York criminal lawyers to prosecutors, all parties recognize the importance of protecting witnesses whether it be for the defense or law enforcement.

Because of the significance of the crime of Tampering with a Witness, the New York criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC have taken the time to create an educational Tampering with a Witness information page. The Tampering with a Witness legal page can assist you in understanding the degrees of the crime while also giving you a jumping point to start the in depth consultation that you will ultimately have with the attorney you determine will represent you. Again, while it is not an "advice" page, the Tampering with a Witness criminal law information page will give you the tools to take the next step in the event you are investigated, arrested or indicted for this crime.

Briefly, New York Tampering with a Witness is prosecuted as four separate degrees (NY PL 215.10, NY PL 215.11, NY PL 215.12 and NY PL 215.13). The crimes are punishable by up to one year in jail or four, seven or twenty five years in state prison respectively. It is important to note that this crime is not the same crime as Intimidating a Victim or a Witness and has distinct elements. Generally, you tamper with a witness when you attempt to or prevent that person from testifying or going to a court proceeding. The crime can be enhanced by the nature of the threats or if injury actually occurs.

Regardless of the degree of Tampering with a Witness you are charged with, it is important to understand how the law differentiates "physical injury" and "serious physical injury" as it directly corresponds with your potential punishment in the event you are convicted.

For extensive information on the New York crimes of Tampering with a Witness, please follow the highlighted link. Information on other criminal statutes, including commentary on cases in the media and legal court decisions, can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients in New York City as well as the suburban counties.

Robbery in the First Degree is one of the most serious and violent crimes in the New York Penal Law handled by both prosecutors and New York criminal lawyers. In fact, if you threaten the use of force to take property and you possess a firearm or gun, then your crime is a "B" felony punishable by a minimum of five years in state prison and a maximum of twenty five years for a first time offender. It is important to note that to be convicted of this crime you need not actually possess this firearm. Instead, you need only to "display[] what appears to be...a firearm" to be convicted of New York Penal Law 160.15(4). This entry will address a recent New York State First Department Appellate Division decision addressing what actions constitute and are sufficient to establish "display[ing] what appears to be...a firearm."

In People v. Douglas Welsh, indictment number 2963/2008, the defendant was convicted after testimony from a restaurant employee that the defendant entered the premises and demanded money from the cash register or he would shoot the employee in the face. Further testimony revealed that the defendant collected money and gestured with one hand while the other hand was bent at the elbow and stayed in the same position as if something (a gun) was being held waist level. Moreover, the employee could not see that hand at waist level because it was behind the counter. After trial, the defendant was convicted of Robbery in the First Degree under the subsection above for displaying what appeared to be a firearm. The defendant appealed from that conviction arguing that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that he displayed what appeared to be a firearm.

Continue to the second page for the relevant portion of the Court's decision.

Continue reading "New York Robbery in the First Degree: What Constitutes "Displaying" a Firearm or Gun Under New York Criminal Law" »

According to the Staten Island District Attorney's Office, Kami Purvis, an employee at a physician's office, was arrested after an alleged prescription drug scheme that spanned 19 months. District Attorney Daniel Donovan claims that not only did the crime span well over a year and a half, but it is believed that as a result of prescription pad thefts, Ms. Purvis managed to obtain nearly 3500 pills of oxycodone in varying dosages.

Not only is it alleged that Ms. Purvis stole the prescription pads and forged the actual prescriptions, reports further allege that she submitted the prescriptions to one particular pharmacy 35 times. Compounding matters, it is claimed that she used her own state Medicaid card to purchase the pills in many of the transactions. If the allegations of past fraudulent transactions were not enough, reports indicate that upon Ms. Purvis' arrest, the police recovered 15 prescription sheets including three that were filled out fraudulently. If reports are true, Ms. Purvis voluntarily submitted to a drug test where she came back with negative results. If nothing else, this will certainly hamper a potential defense that she abused the drugs as opposed to profited from them. Ms. Purvis should have requested council before agreeing to submit to such a test.

Unfortunately for Ms. Purvis, the former medical office employee now faces a potential indictment for charges including 12 counts of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, five counts of Forgery in the Second Degree, and one count each of Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Fourth Degree, Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, and other lesser offenses.

Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third and Fourth Degrees are "B" and "C" felonies respectively. The third degree offense is punishable by up to nine years in prison while the fourth degree offense is punishable by up to five years in prison. Forgery is a "D" felony punishable by up to seven years in prison and Falsifying Business Records is an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in state prison. Although it does not appear that she is charged with Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, a "D" felony like Forgery, I anticipate that she will be charged with this crime for the allegedly forged prescriptions recovered from her person upon her arrest. Technically, because many of the allegations are separate individual transactions, prosecutors could seek consecutive time whereby after the completion of one sentence, a second sentence would begin.

Extensive information on the crimes of Forgery and Falsifying Business Records can be found through their associated links. Additional information on Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance can be found through their respective links as well. For materials on these and other crimes, as well as legal decisions and commentary on cases in the news, please read Crotty Saland PC's New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog) or review the Crotty Saland PC website.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two New York criminal lawyers and former Manhattan prosecutors. The New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused throughout the New York City area.

When one thinks of Embezzlement in New York, one usually thinks of a Grand Larceny type scheme. While this may be true, experienced New York criminal lawyers will tell you that an Embezzlement based Grand Larceny investigation, arrest or indictment may only be the tip of the iceberg. In fact, while one's main objective may be a theft, there are numerous other crimes that one may face if one is charged or arrested for Grand Larceny by Embezzlement in New York.

A savvy and experienced prosecutor is likely able to throw a litany of charges at you that tie back to a Grand Larceny and Embezzlement arrest. If one doesn't stick, the prosecutor realizes that there are many additional charges that may. Obviously, some Embezzlement charges in New York are more serious than others. For most people, however, any type of felony conviction will cripple their career. While no New York criminal defense attorney can guarantee a particular result in the face of an Embezzlement charge, arrest or indictment, he or she should be able to assess your case, discuss the possible charges and implement a defense.

Potential Embezzlement Crimes in New York

Grand Larceny in the Fourth, Third, Second and First Degrees

New York Grand Larceny, Penal Law sections 155.30, 155.35, 155.40 and 155.42, addresses the thefts or embezzlement of property and money valued in excess of $1,000, $3,000, $50,000 and $1,000,000 respectively. Generally, regardless of the nature of the property (in the Embezzlement context it is usually, if not always, money), if the you steal property in these value ranges, you will face these charges. A conviction for 155.30 carries a maximum sentence for a first time offender of 1 and 1/3 to 4 years in prison, while convictions for 155.35, 155.40 or 155.42 carry maximum sentences of 2 and 1/3 to 7, 5 to 15 and 8 and 1/3 to 25 years in sate prison respectively.

Forgery in the Second Degree

New York Penal Law section 170.10 deals not with the actual theft, but the altering of a "written instrument" where it is done with the intent to defraud. An easy way to visualize this is if you, for example, sign checks in the name of someone else. The mere signing of the receipt, invoice or check could be deemed Forgery in the Second Degree as long as all of the elements are satisfied. A "D" felony, Forgery in the Second Degree carries a maximum sentence of 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in prison for a first time offender.

Obviously, the New York Embezzlement crime with the greatest potential punishment is the Grand Larceny offense. Merely because Grand Larceny is likely the most serious crime does not mean the others are less significant. While the District Attorney's Office may aggregate the total theft from your employer over a period of years into one Grand Larceny charge, each time you made the deposit, wrote someone's signature or tried to cover up a crime by altering the books, you may be charged with multiple crimes. In other words, every time you made that deposit or signed the name you can face a new charge that could potentially be consecutive in nature. You signed your supervisor's name 15 times over the course of the year...that could be 15 Forgery charges. What you believed might be "only" a one count Grand Larceny indictment may become a 50 count indictment involving multiple crimes.

This article on New York Embezzlement laws and crimes is not the right place to identify and set forth a defense to allegations against you, but if nothing else, it can help set the parameters in which you and your New York criminal lawyer will likely need to operate. In fact, there may be other charges and crimes that you may face beyond those addressed here (Crotty Saland PC will have a second entry in this section regarding Identity Theft and Falsifying Business Records). For legal advice on your particular case, discuss the allegations in depth with your counsel so he or she can ascertain how to proceed and protect your liberty.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm that has successfully represented (case results) clients in investigations, arrests, and indictments involving white collar crimes throughout New York City and the region. Prior to starting the firm, the founding New York Embezzlement attorneys both served as prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

For extensive information on the crimes of Grand Larceny and Forgery, please follow the highlighted links above to the Crotty Saland PC website. Additional information on these crimes, as well as criminal statutes, legal decisions and cases in the news, can be found by searching the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com).

** The second installment of the Embezzlement Criminal Law Primer can be found through the link.

According to reports, ex-Giant Lawrence "L.T." Taylor pleaded guilt to the misdemeanors of Patronizing a Prostitute and Sexual Misconduct this afternoon in full satisfaction of his arrest and charges stemming from his alleged statutory rape of a 16 year old girl. It is likely that LT saw the "writing on the wall" if he decided to fight the case at trial. Unfortunately, for Mr. Taylor, it is not a legal defense to say that he believed, genuinely or not, that the girl was 19 or 25 for that matter. The former All-Pro linebacker is not out of the woods yet. It appears as if Mr. Taylor will be sentenced to probation, but will also have to register as a sex offender.

Patronizing a Prostitute is a fairly straight forward offense. A person is guilty of Patronizing a Prostitute in the Third Degree, New York Penal Law 230.04, when he or she patronizes a prostitute. Generally, patronizing includes an agreement or exchange of sexual conduct (it need not be penetration) for a fee.

Sexual Misconduct differs from Patronizing a Prostitute. According to New York Penal Law section 130.20, a person is guilty of this crime when:

1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person's consent; or
2. He or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct with another person without such person's consent; or
3. He or she engages in sexual conduct with an animal or a dead human body.

While he may have sacked lions, colts and even bears, its is likely that LT did not perpetrate the offense as described in subsection three. He admitted to the crime as set forth in one of the other two subsections. The failure of consent on the part of the young girl was an inability to consent based on her age. In other words, she was too young to consent even if she agreed to have some form of sexual intercourse with the former linebacker. It is important to note that New York Penal Law 130.20 is a crime specified under the Sex Offender Registration Act.

While I clearly was not privy to the discussions between Mr. Taylor's attorney and the prosecutors, Mr. Taylor certainly played his hand correctly from a criminal defense perspective. The original offer of a felony plea and six months jail was a ridiculous offer. Because he face no minimum sentence and a maximum of one and one third to four years in prison, there would be no reason to take a plea to a felony with jail. At that point, even with strong evidence against him, he should go to trial. There was no incentive to take a plea when he could have gotten that much jail or around that much time even if he were convicted. From the prosecution's perspective, it is likely they too realized that there was no incentive for Mr. Taylor to plea to a felony with six months jail. Moreover, they probably recognized that if they did not sweeten the deal, they would be forced to put the young teenage girl on the stand where she would be subject to cross examination and potentially the media. Whether I am correct in my analysis or not, Mr. Taylor not only walks free, but does so without a felony record.

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 throughout the New York City region.

Extensive information on criminal statutes (including Patronizing a Prostitute and Escort related crimes), legal decisions and other newsworthy cases can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog and the Crotty Saland PC website.

The New York criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland PC, a New York City criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, recently drafted a criminal law information page for the crimes of Unlawful Imprisonment in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 135.10) and Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 135.05). While not a substitute for a consultation with your own criminal defense attorney or an "advice" page, the Unlawful Imprisonment criminal law page is a good educational starting point for anyone accused of or arrested for this crime. Armed with the basic information as to how the degrees of the crime differ as well the critical difference between the legal terms of "restrain" and "abduct," the information page can give you the basis to have an educated conversation with your attorney regarding the degrees of Unlawful Imprisonment and how they compare to the more serious offense of Kidnapping. Armed with this knowledge, you and your New York criminal defense attorney can the ascertain and implement the appropriate defense in your case.

The New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused throughout New York City and the region. Commentary on cases in the news as well as legal analysis of court decisions and criminal statutes can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Identity Theft (New York Penal Law section 190.78, New York Penal Law section 190.79 and New York Penal Law section 190.80), one of the more prevalent crimes prosecuted by Assistant District Attorneys in New York, is often associated with offenses such as Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, Forgery and Grand Larceny. More often than not, when and if there is a plea to multiple charges in an indictment, the sentences run concurrent. This means that the sentence on all of the crimes run at the same time as opposed to after each other (this is called consecutive). One of the reasons that a sentence is completed this way is because the crimes are all part of the same transaction.

As noted above, in the realm of Identity Theft crimes in New York, the offenses are often times not on an island, but part of other criminal schemes. Therefore, one would hope that if a plea is the best option, that plea would run concurrent to other sentences. Sadly, for one individual, this was not the case.

In People v. Hayes, 71 A.D.3d 1187 (3rd Dept. 2010), the defendant was indicted by a Grand Jury and ultimately pleaded to Identity Theft in the Second Degree for using a fraudulent credit card in the name of another individual and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree for possessing forged and fake credit cards. Ultimately, the defendant was sentenced to five and one half to eleven years in state prison. This sentence was a consecutive. Upon completing his sentence for the Identity Theft for using the credit card in the store, he then had to serve a new sentence for possessing fraudulent credit cards. On appeal, the defendant argued that this sentence was improper for the reasons mentioned above, ie, it was part of the same criminal transaction.

In a very brief, but clear response, the Appellate Division found that the sentence was legal. While the crimes appeared to be all part of the same scheme, the Court ruled that the charges were distinct charges and evolved from separate acts. As a result, a consecutive sentence was appropriate.

While it may be too late for this particular defendant, there are lessons to be taken from this case. First, if you are pleading to multiple counts in an indictment, if your belief is that your sentence will be concurrent make sure the record reflects such a promise or disposition (that should be obvious). Second, while a set of facts and allegations may appear to be part of the same incident, they in fact may not be. Consult with your New York criminal lawyer to ensure, as best you can, that the time you face is concurrent and not consecutive.

Crotty Saland PC, a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, represents the accused throughout the New York City region. Jeremy Saland, one of the founding partners, was one of the original members of the Identity Theft Unit created under Robert Morgenthau in the New York County District Attorney's Office prior to become a New York criminal lawyer.

For extensive information on the crimes of Identity Theft, Grand Larceny, Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument, please follow the respective links above and go the the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog where you can find criminal statutes, legal decisions and commentary about cases in the news.

Regardless of the degree, Burglary in New York (NY Penal Law sections 140.20, 140.25 and 140.30) requires that at the time you unlawfully enter or remain in a building you also have a simultaneous intent to commit a particular crime. Well, not really...This entry deals with the question of what the prosecution must prove regarding an accused burglar's criminal intent and whether or not they must prove the intent to commit a specific crime.

The Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, has addressed this issue in the past and answered it in a clear and decisive way. Prosecutors do not need to establish the particular crime that the accused intended to commit when he or she either unlawfully entered or remained in the building. The Court went as far as asserting that "[h]ad the Legislature intended [that the prosecution prove a specific crime] it could easily in revising the Penal Law have inserted the word 'specified' or the word 'particular' between 'a"' and 'crime.'" People v. Mackey, 49 N.Y.2d 274 (1980)

Simply put, while the prosecution can circumstantially or directly establish that the accused intended to commit a particular crime (maybe you were caught with jewelry of a home owner and, therefore, it is clear that you intended to commit a larceny inside the home), it need not do so. If they were required to do so on each and every case, "the trial of a [B]urglary indictment becomes an exercise in hairsplitting." People v. Mackey

For additional information on the crime and laws governing Burglary in New York, please follow the highlighted link to Crotty Saland PC's website and Burglary section. Further information as to the definition of "dwelling" in the context of Burglary in the Second and First Degrees may be found on the respective link. Other penal law statutes, legal decisions and cases in the news can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

A New York based criminal defense practice, the criminal defense lawyers and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC represent clients throughout New York City and the suburbs.