New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

If true, Mahmoud Abdel-Salam Omar and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, both arrested in Manhattan after allegedly making sexual advances (and then some) on two members of hotel staff at NYC's Pierre and Sofitel respectively, are both in serious criminal trouble. While the two men have much in common, both are top financial leaders and businessmen, foreign nationals and have an alleged libido that is likely slightly smaller than their egos, the outlook on their cases from purely a legal standpoint are drastically different. In other words, the former head of the International Money Fund and the current chairman of El-Mex Salines Company and former president of the Egyptian American Bank and the Federation of Egyptian Banks, are really in two different camps as far as what District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. and his league of prosecutors may have in store.

Putting aside the provability and strength of each case (this is not something a criminal defense attorney would put aside, but for the sake of analyzing the charges) and keeping in mind that the information I have is from what I have read in press reports, the conduct of the two men appears drastically different. That is, Mr. Strauss-Kahn, known as DSK, allegedly had some form of oral sex and penetration in the mouth and attempted to rape the complainant maid. The basis behind the top offense charged against him is not the attempted rape, but that there was alleged oral sexual conduct as a result of forcible compulsion. This crime, Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 130.50), is a "B" felony punishable by up to twenty five years in state prison.

Unlike DSK, Mahmoud Abdel Salam Omar "merely" could not keep his hands to himself. As I understand the allegations, and again, I am not privy to the police investigation, Abdel-Salam Omar forcibly fondled or groped the maid's breasts. The likely top charge, in addition to a probable misdemeanor charge of Unlawful Imprisonment for "trapping" the woman in the hotel room, is Sexual Abuse in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 130.65). This crime is perpetrated when one, by forcible compulsion, subjects another person to sexual contact. A "D" felony, this crime is punishable by up to seven years in state prison.

The New York Penal Law defines "forcible compulsion" as a use of force or any type of threat that puts a person in fear of physical injury. "Sexual contact" is defined as a touching of the intimate or sexual parts of another person for the purpose of gratification or sexual desire. This person cannot be married to the accused. Moreover, this touching can occur through clothing.

I am confident that Adbel-Salam Omar will take a similar path in the defense of his case as DSK. While a touching will not likely result in DNA being preserved in any capacity, Abdel-Salam Omar will deny the offense and claim there is ulterior motive behind the maid's allegations. After all, without DNA or any admission on his part, Abdel-Salam Omar will reduce this case to a "he said, said she said" with little to no physical corroboration. Only last week, a jury acquitted the "rape cops" of a sex crime against a woman where there was no physical or DNA corroboration, but other strong and damning evidence including an audio recording of an apparent admission. Furthermore, prosecutors had a video tape of the police officers returning to the scene of the alleged incident. District Attorney Vance has a stable of tremendous prosecutors, just like the experienced trial attorneys who handled the "rape cop" case. Unfortunately for Mr. Vance and Company, juries can be fickle in their desires for forensic evidence and overly influenced by what has become known as the "CSI effect." Whether there is more evidence we do not know about or this case is solely based on the statement from the alleged victim, it is something that will likely guide law enforcement's decision making process. Even if there is nothing beyond the complainant, sometimes prosecutors must take the difficult path in the face of a difficult case especially where not doing so might cause outrage in the community.

Whether the two men "hole up" in a a beautiful loft together as their respective cases play out, only time will tell. Like DSK, Adbel-Salam Omar will ultimately be granted bail, but will be required to turn over his passport. Whether Manhattan prosecutors rush into the Grand Jury with a seemingly weaker case and feel the pressure of public opinion, is an entirely different matter.

The New York criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused throughout the New York City region. Prior to starting the criminal defense firm, both founding partners served in the Manhattan District Attorneys Office.

For further reading on criminal statutes, court decisions and cases in the news, please review the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog or the Crotty Saland PC website.

Unlike selling drugs or a controlled substance such as cocaine or heroin (New York Penal Law 220.39), selling marijuana (marihuana) in New York carries a significantly less punishment. Pursuant to New York Penal Law section 221.40, Criminal Sale of Marijuana (Marihuana) in the Fourth Degree, a person is guilty of this crime if they knowingly and unlawfully sell marijuana. A fairly straight forward offense, Criminal Sale of Marijuana is an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

An interesting question is whether or not the weight of the marijuana is relevant to New York Penal Law 221.40. While weight of the marijuana is an element that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in felony marijuana sales, as long as the prosecution proves that the accused sold the marijuana for "consideration," ie, money or for something in return, then weight does not matter. See People v. Childs, 40 A.D.3d 270 (1st Dept. 2007). Again, weight is relevant to felony sales, but as long as there was an exchange for consideration, weight has not impact on the charge of Criminal Sale of Marihuana in the Fourth Degree.

Having said that, weight is an element of a Criminal Sale of Marijuana in the Fifth Degree (New York Penal Law 221.35). Criminal Sale of Marijuana in the Fifth Degree requires that a person "knowingly and unlawfully sells, without consideration, one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances containing marihuana and the preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances are of an aggregate weight of two grams or less; or one cigarette containing marihuana." A "B" misdemeanor, this crime is punishable by up to 90 days in jail.

The difference between the statutes is clear. If you sell marijuana for money in return, then you will be charged with NY PL 221.40. This is true even if the weight is insignificant. On the other hand, if you sell marijuana without consideration and the weight is two grams or less or you sell only one "joint," then the lesser NY PL 221.35 would be charged. Again, even if there is no consideration, if you sell more than two grams or more than one "joint" the "A" misdemeanor is the proper charge.

Like the sale of marijuana, possession of the same is impacted by numerous factors. In fact, possession not in public may not be a crime at all. Weight too factors into the potential offense. While this entry will not deal with marijuana possession charges such as Criminal Possession of Marijuana (NY PL 221.10) and Unlawful Possession of Marijuana (NY PL 221.05), know that the weight of the contraband, whether it is burning or in public view and other factors will influence the potential charge.

For further information on New York drug laws and crimes, follow the highlighted link to Crotty Saland PC's website. Additional information on drug and marijuana crimes as well as other statutes, legal decisions and cases in the press, please review the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Crotty Saland PC was founded by two former Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys and represents clients throughout the New York City area.

What can only be described as a horrendous result from the eyes of the prosecution and a tremendous result from the eyes of Police Officers Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata, a Manhattan jury acquitted the accused NYPD officers of rape and every other felony. What was once a bleak outlook where each man faced mandatory state prison, is now a significantly less dire situation. At the time of sentencing, both Mr. Moreno and Mr. Mata "merely" face up to one year in jail on Rikers Island.

Official Misconduct: New York Penal Law 195.00

According to the New York Penal Law, Official Misconduct occurs when a person who is a public servant (such as a police officer), with intent to obtain a benefit, commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions. The accused must also know that such act is unauthorized.

Far from the most serious crime, a conviction for this offense in the realm of employment as a Police Officer will likely result in their dismissal from the Police Department. Having said that, a more interesting question and issue is the type of sentence these men will receive. Will the court sentence Kenneth Moreno and Franklin Mata to a year in jail? How about six months or even a "split" of jail and probation. Can and will the court use the underlying offense, aka, the alleged rape, as the basis to maximize the sentence even thought there was an acquittal? Is it ethical to do so? While a victim impact statement is often relevant to a judge at time of sentencing, according to the jury, there is no victim and, as a result, no possible victim impact statement. On a side note, what happens to the young lady, who is no longer a "victim" in the criminal law sense, and her suit against New York City? All of these questions and issues are interesting ones that are likely running through the judge's mind. Sooner or later we will get his answer.

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

Known more for civil enforcement as opposed to handling significant criminal prosecutions like their local District Attorney counterparts, the New York State Attorney General's Office announced the arrest of 19 people in an international car theft ring. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, trying to step from the shadow of his incredibly popular predecessor Andrew Cuomo, announced that this alleged New York City based theft ring stole hundreds of vehicles worth in the neighborhood of $10 million. It's alleged leader, William Cruz, determined what cars were needed on the black market and in turn advised his crew. Because prosecutors believe that Mr. Cruz and his alleged cohorts were part of a criminal enterprise with a true and viable structure, the men of this alleged gang are all being prosecuted for Enterprise Corruption.

A "B" felony, Enterprise Corruption is New York States version of the Federal RCO statute. While often utilized as a statute in the context of organized mob type crimes, as long as prosecutors can establish the existence of a criminal enterprise where the members are in an ascertainable structure sharing the same goal, then prosecutors can charge this offense. Obviously, an indictment such as this is significantly more complex than as it is described. Assuming prosecutors are successful in establishing the elements of this crime, a defendant with no record faces a minimum of one to three years and a maximum of eight and one third to twenty five years in state prison.

Although not set forth in the press release, it is likely that the members or the alleged organization will be charged with numerous counts of some or all of the following crimes: Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument. All felonies in the"D" range, these crimes relate to the theft of the vehicles, the possession of the stolen vehicles and the alterations of VIN numbers. If the vehicles are worth in excess of $50,000.000, then the defendants could also face "C" felonies. It is worth noting that the law permits the aggregation of values of stolen property if the victim is the same. While there is some case law that permits the aggregation where the scheme is the same as opposed to the victim, prosecutors are less likely to push the envelope for such an aggregation. Regardless, the defendants do and will have a bigger concern with the "B" felony Enterprise Corruption charge hanging over their collective heads.

The defendants are as follows:

Michael Torres, Henry Morel, Nathaniel Urena, Dennis Aviles, Joseph Aviles, Edward Aviles, Vicente Abreu (owner of Big Daddy Hardware), Jose Miguel Mejia-Rodriguez, Adam Jiminez, John Acosta, Edwin Mercado, Felix Cespedes, Aurelio Delossantos, Jesus Gonzalez and Francisco Rodriguez. While certain defendant allegedly had different roles (some located codes at a Toyota dealership to create counterfeit keys, others made the keys and some found the vehicles), these roles do not automatically mean a structure existed. Arguably, instead of having a boss, enforcers, etc., this operation could have been a more loose knit group of people as if each person was a "sub contractor." Again, a loose knit group of friends or thieves could have a crew, but not necessarily an enterprise with structure and leadership. To that end, the Attorney General's Office did not actually charge some of the crew members with Enterprise Corruption believing that the standards of that crime had not been met. These individuals are: Anne Acosta, Edward Gomez, Edward Terrero, Jose Perez and Tayyab Mukhta.

Extensive information on the crime of Grand Larceny as well as Enterprise Corruption can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog. There you will also find other criminal law statutes, legal decisions and analysis of cases in the news. Beyond the legal blog, the Crotty Saland PC website also contains detailed information on crimes in New York.

Founded by two former Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys, Crotty Saland PC is a criminal defense firm representing those accused of crimes throughout the New York City area.

I know Staten Island...and it ain't no Vegas...Whether its cards, ponies, or the pigskin classic, Staten Island (Richmond County, New York) District Attorney Dan Donovan doesn't want any of it in his county. Unfortunately for 28 people allegedly involved in a gambling ring, this lesson was learned the hard way. Charged with Enterprise Corruption, Money Laundering and Promoting Gambling in the First Degree, many of the defendants face up to 25 years in prison as well as a mandatory minimum term of up to three years incarceration if they are convicted of being a part of the fraud scheme. While not out of the woods, more than half of the alleged co-conspirators are charged with Promoting Gambling in the Second Degree. This "A" misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year jail on Rikers Island.

According to prosecutors, over $5.5 million was seized in law enforcement raids and search warrants executed in New York and New Jersey. The investigation, which culminated in the arrests today and earlier indictments, began two years ago when police began to use wire taps and surveillance to track their targets. These targets, now defendants charged with the more serious felonies, include:

Joseph Stentella, Vito W. Maccarone Jr., Anthony J. Stentella, Steven J. Carannante, Thomas Trapas, Daniel A. Venditti, Nedzad Karastanovic aka Najo, Keith Mory, Ramon R. Quevedo and Sanela Karastanovic. Mr. Karastanovic is charged with Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree as opposed to the gambling related crimes. If convicted, Mr. Karastanovic faces up to one to nine years in prison as a first time offender.

The following defendants are each charged with the misdeanor of Promoting Gambling in the Second Degree:

Kevin Costello, Frank Bavosi, Charles Deverin, James Fischetti, Donald Hawkins, Mark Kampe, Rose Igneri, Shawn Lamaestra, Alfred Madsen Jr., Michael O'Brien, Vincent Palumbo, Gerald Penna, Kevin Shimrock, Thomas Stuart, Alfred Tumolo Jr. and Roger Wuy.

Although I cannot comment on the strength and weakness of the case as I am not privy to any of the facts, generally, one is guilty of Enterprise Corruption when he is part of an ascertainable structure, an actual criminal enterprise exists, and he has the common goal of that enterprise. If there is no structure and instead there is a lose knit group of fraudsters, Enterprise Corruption will not stand. Having said that, New York State's RICO statute is significantly more complicated and complex than defined here.

The crimes of Promoting Gambling are much less complicated. For one to be guilty of the lesser second degree offense, one must knowingly advance or profit from unlawful gambling activity. There are numerous ways to bump this crime up to the felony level first degree crime. The likely subsection utilized by prosecutors in Staten Island is that those defendants charged with this offense engaged in bookmaking and received or excepted in any given day at least five thousand dollars worth of bets through at least five separate bets. Promoting Gambling in the First Degree is an "E" felony punishable by up to one and one third to four years in prison for a first time offender. As noted above, however, this crime while likely the substantive offense of the scheme is the least significant of all of the felonies charged in terms of potential punishment.

Certainly, time will tell what defenses are implemented and the manner in which each defendant confronts the case. Unfortunately, many of these men are likely sitting in local jails throughout New Jersey awaiting extradition to Las Ve...errr...Staten Island with ample time to determine their next step.

For in depth information on the crimes of Enterprise Corruption and Promoting Gambling, please review both the Crotty Saland PC website as well as the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC represents the accused at all stages of criminal investigations and arrests in the New York City area.

Forgery in the Second Degree, New York Penal Law 170.10, contains specific statutory language. In substance, some of the critical elements are that the accused must have the "intent to defraud" and "falsely make[], create[] or alter[] a written instrument." Moreover, in doing so, a defendant must also have "create[d], transfer[ed], terminate[d] or otherwise affect[ed] a legal right." While the statute also sets forth some specific types of instruments such as wills, a relatively recent appellate court decision (the second highest level court in New York State) refused to elaborate or extend Forgery crimes into other areas. While the decision doesn't necessary preclude Forgery crimes in New York from extending beyond the specific instruments in the statute, it does help set the parameters of how far assistant district attorneys can go when prosecuting Forgery offenses.

In People v. Carmack, 34 A.D.3d 1299 (4th Dept. 2006), the Appellate Division Fourth Department reversed a conviction at trial where the defendant was alleged to have perpetrated Forgery in the Second Degree. There, the accused was alleged to have spoofed email address and sent out solicitations to other email users. In other words, solicitation emails would arrive in one's inbox and appear as if it came from another person or friend as opposed to a general "spam" email. Although the emails were sent from the defendant's computer, a program made it appear as if other entities or people had sent the email when in fact they had not. Finding that emails for a dietary supplement, for example, were not the type of instrument set forth in the statute, the appellate level court reversed the conviction.

Not only did prosecutors overreach in their attempt to stop what they believed was a criminal act in the arena of Forgery, but the judges also reversed the charge of Criminal Possession of a Forgery Device within the meaning of Penal Law 170.40. There, the court noted that an essential element of this crime is that the particular device must be "specifically designed for use in counterfeiting or otherwise forging written instruments.” However, the prosecution's own expert witness testified that the program utilized by the defendant could in fact be used for legitimate purposes.

While this case may or may not be a useful tool in the arsenal of a criminal defense attorney when representing his or her client in a matter involving Forgery or Criminal Possession of a Forgery Device, the concept of the case is an important one. That is, prosecutors, despite their infinite means to investigate and prosecute crimes, must remain within the confines and structures set forth in the statutes they have sworn to uphold.

For a wealth of information, statutes and articles regarding Forgery and related fraud crimes in New York City as well as the State of New York, please review the applicable sections of the Crotty Saland PC website (CrottySaland.Com) and the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com).

Crotty Saland PC is a white collar criminal defense firm located in Manhattan. Prior to starting the firm, both founding partners served as prosecutors in the New York County District Attorney's Office under Robert Morgenthau.

According to news reports, the Dutchess County District Attorney's Office has announced the indictment of Arthur Fisher, Jennifer Fisher and Christopher DeSanto, all of Ossining. A Grand Jury indicted the trio for Grand Larceny after they were alleged to have stolen in excess of $2,000,000 from Vassar College in Poughkeepsie. More specifically, Both Fishers are now charged with Grand Larceny in the First Degree, a "B" felony punishable by a minimum of one to three years and a maximum of eight and one third to twenty five years in state prison. Mr. Fisher and Mr. DeSanto are also charged with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a "C" felony, punishable by no mandatory minimum term of incarceration, but a maximum of five to fifteen years. Additionally, the Grand Jury indicted Mr. Fisher with eight counts of Forgery in the Second Degree and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree. "D" felonies, these crimes are punishable with no mandatory term in prison but up to two and one third to seven years "upstate." Although not charged, if the allegations are true it is likely that the Grand Jury could have easily voted a true bill (indictment) against these defendants for Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. This crime is an "E" felony punishable by up to one and one third to four years in state prison.

According to reports, C&R Construction Services, a fake company created by Mr. and Mrs. Fisher, was alleged to have completed construction related jobs at the college, but never did so. Instead, it is alleged that Mr. Fisher, a project manager at Vassar College, allowed fraudulent invoices to be submitted for jobs that were never done. In total, it is alleged that the Fishers were paid just shy of $2,000,000. Just like C&R Construction, it is further claimed that Mr. Fisher had another bogus company, Good Shepherd Construction, that was involved in a similar scheme netting in excess of over $350,000. Completing the trifecta, the indictment also accuses Mr. Fisher and Mr. DeSanto of allegedly submitting invoices for work that was not completed. As a result, Mr. DeSanto received in excess of $140,000. Although not a defense to the allegations if true, one must wonder or question the oversight, or lack thereof, at Vassar College that would allow someone to steal nearly $2,500,000.

Grand Larceny in the First Degree occurs when property, regardless of its nature, is stolen and is valued in excess of $1,000,000. Grand Larceny in the Second Degree occurs when property, regardless of its nature, is stolen and is valued in excess of $50,000, but $1,000,000 or less. It is important to note that where the victim is the same, values or separate thefts can be aggregated or combined to reach a higher number.

A wealth of additional information on the crimes of Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and Forgery can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog or the Crotty Saland PC website. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC, a New York criminal defense firm, represents those investigated, arrested and indicted for white collar crimes throughout the New York City region.

Unfortunately for a man from Grand Junction Colorado, a lesson in New York State gun laws did not come early enough. Far from an atypical story, Dustin Forsling was jailed and lost his gun after he attempted to check his firearm with an airline attendant in Queens' LaGuardia Airport. The unfortunate reality for Mr. Forsling, and anyone who carries a loaded firearm in the streets of New York City who is not specifically licensed in New York State to do so, prosecution has become more common. Compounding matters, the crime he or she will face, New York Penal Law 265.03 (Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree) is a "C" violent felony. Irrespective of your ignorance of the law or whether or not you had the intent to use the pistol or revolver in a violent way, the minimum sentence should you be convicted is three and one half years in state prison and the maximum is fifteen years in prison. This is the sentence for a first time offender.

Fortunately for Mr. Forsling, it is likely that his counsel convinced Queens prosecutors that although violent intent is not a necessary element of the crime charged, Mr. Forsling was and is a legitimate man with a legitimate out of state permit. There was no "evil" motive. Moreover, Mr. Forsling was not trying to conceal the weapon, but had it locked away properly and was attempting to check it with the airline. These factors certainly mitigated his otherwise innocent conduct (it is important to note, however, in New York State a firearm is considered loaded by law if it is capable of being loaded and the ammunition is not actually loaded into the weapon).

It is critically important that anyone traveling with a firearm to New York recognize that mere possession of that loaded weapon (remember, bullets need not be actually in the gun), can and will be charged with a felony. While Queens prosecutors are generally reasonable if a person was taking the proper steps to check the firearm at the airport (reasonable can be a relative term depending on your criminal history, proof of registration in your home state, your actions at the time of arrest, etc.), they will still seek bail to keep you in custody or send you to Rikers Island. If that wasn't bad enough, if you travel to New York (Manhattan), the likely destination for all tourists, prosecutors are significantly more harsh and righteous in their prosecution of these crimes. In fact, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office routinely recommends or offers jail or state prison as a part of any plea. Obviously, in these cases, you have no choice but to battle.

As more and more of these type of firearm arrests and indictments take place, some individuals have considered litigation of New York State laws in connection to federal laws. How can having a validly registered firearm in one state be such a serious offense in another? How can one travel with a legal firearm in one's home state to another state where the possession is also legal commit a crime by merely crossing through a third state where the legality of that possession is not recognized? Understandably, most people do not raise their hands high to be the "test case" to challenge New York law.

In depth information on New York gun crimes and firearm laws can be found both on the Crotty Saland PC website as well as the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com). Founded by two former Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent those accused of and arrested for weapon crimes throughout the New York City region.

* Jeremy Saland commented on this story for Grand Junction's KJCT TV

One of the first things you may have said to your criminal lawyer after getting a Desk Appearance Ticket for shoplifting in New York City is something along the line of "I didn't even walk out of the store and the police arrested me for shoplifting! How can that be?!" While this is a fact based question and answer (where were you specifically, where was the property concealed if at all, did you bypass the cash register, etc.), there is also a purely legal view of this question and answer as well.

Because merely an arrest for shoplifting (New York Penal Law 155.25 and New York Penal Law 165.40) can have grave consequences on the careers of professionals such as teachers, financial services employees, lawyers and doctors, it is imperative that your counsel take the time to explain how it is legally possible to be convicted of shoplifting without ever stepping foot out of the store.

One of the key cases that guide shoplifting prosecutions in New York City as well as the rest of New York State is People v. Olivo, 52 NY2d 309 (1981). The key to Olivo was that it established the rule that one's actions involving the property allegedly stolen must be "wholly inconsistent" with the rights of the store owner. Since Olivo, many cases have popped up that address how the conduct in question is "wholly inconsistent," and therefore, in violation of the shoplifting laws of New York. Not necessarily an easy answer, the following two recent court cases may help further clarify a relatively gray area.

In People v. Haimovici, 2011 NY Slip Op 50230, NY: Appellate Term, 2nd Dept. 2011, the court cited examples of conduct that might raise to the level necessary to establish the intent to shoplift. These examples included the "concealment of merchandise while in close proximity to or moving towards an exit, possession of a known shoplifting device, removal of a sensor device or price tag, switching price tags and switching personal property with merchandise." Furthermore, In People v. Stapkowitz, 40 AD 3d 435 (1st Dept. 2007), the Appellate Division found that a conviction for shoplifting would stand where the accused, without any assistance from store staff, was alleged to have stood on a table and removed a chandelier from a fifth-floor ceiling. The defendant then placed the chandelier in a bag, and concocted a story by lying to a salesperson that he already paid for the item. Afterwards, the defendant went down multiple levels and down to the first floor. Once there, the defendant passed multiple cash registers (without paying of course) and ultimately fled after security stopped him. "Wholly inconsistent" with the rights of a store owner? Clearly, the New York appellate level court believed so.

Whether your conduct inside of a store has enough factors to establish your intent beyond a reasonable doubt is on the prosecution to prove. However, having some insight into prior legal decisions is of great value when assessing the merits of your own case. The shoplifting legal decisions mentioned above will give you some guidance in that arena.

For a wealth of information on shoplifting laws, crimes and statutes as well as information on New York City Desk Appearance Tickets, feel free to review the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog (NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com) or the Crotty Saland PC website.

Representing those accused of shoplifting crimes throughout the New York City area, the two founding criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC previously served as prosecutors in the New York County District Attorneys Office for more than a combined thirteen years.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund and potential candidate of the Socialist Party against French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the 2012 election, is to be arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court on the charges of Attempted Rape in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 130.35), Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 130.50) and Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 135.05). Detectives had tugged Mr. Strauss-Kahn out of first class minutes before his Paris bound flight was to leave from JFK Airport. Depending the sources, it is alleged that Mr. Strauss-Kahn, also known as "DSK," was in his room at the Sofitel in Manhattan when a maid entered the room believing nobody was there. It is further claimed through various media outlets that Mr. Strauss-Kahn forced a women into a room and attempted to lock her inside. During this time, Mr. Strauss-Kahn allegedly attempted to have intercourse and sex with the woman and successfully forced the maid to give him oral sex.

The Crimes Dominique Strauss-Kahn Faces in New York

While Mr. Strauss-Kahn may be the biggest individual "fish" caught by the recently christened District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., the crimes the accused faces are no different than if he was the average denizen of Gotham. Assuming the information above is accurate (this is an assumption as there has been no press release fired off by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office as of yet), the crimes and potential punishment are as follows:

NY PL 130.50 - Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree

You are guilty of Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree when you receive or give oral sex (or anal sex) with another person and it is done so through forcible compulsion. The sexual interaction need not be completed. A "B" felony, should Mr. Strauss-Kahn be indicted and convicted for this crime he will face a minimum of five years in state prison and a maximum of twenty five years. This is a mandatory sentence for a first time offender.

NY PL 130.35 - Rape in the First Degree

You are guilty of Rape in the First Degree when you have sexual intercourse with another person and you do so through forcible compulsion. Just like in the crime of Criminal Sexual Act in the First Degree, the accused need not complete the sexual action or intercourse. Moreover, he need not fully penetrate the victim.

In the realm of Mr. Strauss-Kahn's case, it appears as if he did not actually rape the maid and is alleged to have attempted to do the same. Because there is no alleged vaginal intercourse, Mr. Strauss-Kahn's actions would be "knocked down" a level to an attempted crime. When a crime is not completed and is merely an attempt, the degree of the offense drops a level. Here, the charged crime has become Attempted Rape in the First Degree. A "C" violent felony, Mr. Strauss-Kahn faces up to fifteen years in state prison if convicted and a minimum of three and one half years.

NY PL 135.05 - Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree

You are guilty of Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree when you restrain another person. "Restrain" is a defined term in the New York Penal Law. As such, the definition states in part that to restrain a person you must intentionally and unlawfully restrict their movement in a way that substantially interferes with their liberty by confining them in a place where the restriction began. This restraint must be done without the victim's consent and with the knowledge that your actions are unlawful.

If Mr. Strauss-Kahn forced the maid into a room and held her there as set forth above, the (likely soon to be former) International Monetary Fund chief would have this "insignificant" crime to contend with. "Only" an "A" misdemeanor, Unlawful Imprisonment in the Second Degree is punishable by up to a year in Jail. That time spent in jail in New York City is not as comfortable as the $3,000 a night Sofitel, but much "lower-end" in a tax payer funded Rikers Island.

Potential Bail & Related Issues

Once Mr. Strauss-Kahn is arraigned in Manhattan Criminal Court, the prosecution will certainly ask for bail. A judge, after hearing from the defense (they can reserve their bail application), will decide whether or not to set bail. Legally, the purpose of bail is to ensure the accused will return to court. Things considered by the court are the defendant's risk of flight, the likelihood he will return and what, if any, public safety concerns should exist if he is released. Although not specifically mentioned in any statute, the media attention can certainly impact the decision of those who ask for and set bail (update: it is interesting to note that subsequent to drafting this entry, reports indicate that DA Vance altered the bail request of $250,000 initially demanded by the assigned prosecutor to $2,000,000 - a very atypical action). Regardless of whether or not a judge remands (holds without bail), sets a reasonable bail for or releases Mr. Strauss-Kahn, it is likely he will have to surrender his passport (update: law enforcement is in possession of DSK's passport).

Although his chances of running for the presidency of France likely dwindles by the minute, it is overwhelmingly unlikely this case will be resolve in time for Mr. Strauss-Kahn to announce his candidacy by the June deadline. Prosecutors have at least six months to obtain an indictment and answer ready for trial. The practical reality is that a case like this can easily exceed that time frame.

Obviously, having no inside information as to the crimes and allegations other than what is available to the media, the offenses and charges can differ from what is posted here. For extensive information on these and other crimes, please feel free to review the materials through the highlighted links or peruse the Crotty Saland PC website or the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog where commentary on legal decisions, criminal statutes and press worthy cases can be found.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm. Founded by two former Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the defendants and targets of criminal investigations throughout the New York City region.

Computer crimes in New York City and throughout New York State are no longer the crimes of the future, but the crimes of today. New York criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors alike are seeing cybercrimes and computer crimes being perpetrated in new schemes and in more creative manners almost daily. Having said that, while the means by which computer crimes such as Computer Tampering, Computer Trespass, Unauthorized Use of a Computer and Unlawful Duplication of Computer Related Material are perpetrated, statutorily defined defenses have remained the same. To be clear, there are many ways your criminal defense attorney may ascertain the best defense against a criminal allegation, but in the realm of computer crimes there are specific defenses set forth in the New York Penal Law pursuant to section 156.50.

New York Penal Law 156.50(1)

It is a defense to the crimes of Computer Trespass and Unauthorized Use of a Computer if the accused had "reasonable grounds to believe" he or she had permission to use the computer.

New York Penal Law 156.50(2)

It is a defense to any degree of Computer Tampering if the accused had "reasonable grounds to believe" he or she was authorized to alter or destroy the computer program or data.

New York Penal Law 156.50(3)

It is a defense to Unlawful Duplication of Computer Related Material if the accused had "reasonable grounds to believe" that he or she had the right to reproduce in any manner the computer program or data.

Although the above defenses seem fairly straight forward, the application of these defense are not as easy. What is a "reasonable person" and did you behave in such a manner? Obviously, these and other defenses are what you and your New York computer crime lawyer will determine after you have thoroughly addressed the allegations, the evidence and other possible defenses.

For extensive information on New York computer crimes, please review the New York Computer Crime information page. Furthermore, in depth information on the crimes of Computer Tampering, Computer Trespass and Unauthorized use of a Computer can be found through the respective links above. In addition to information on these crimes, the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog contains insight into criminal statutes, legal decisions and cases in the New York area news.

The New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represent those accused of computer crimes throughout the New York city area. Before starting the law firm, both partners served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

The New York Grand Larceny lawyers and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC are pleased to announced that our client avoided both arrest and prosecution for allegedly stealing approximately $32,000 from a bank. Detectives in a New York City suburb had sought out our client for arrest after bank officials learned our client accessed an account that she did not have permission to utilize. During a few month period, our client allegedly withdrew tens of thousands of dollars.

Although a detective asked our client to surrender for her arrest, we argued that a bank error, and not fraud or theft on our client's part, precipitated the alleged crime. In fact, we argued that her actions may not have been criminal. Specifically, the bank opened a sub-account under our client's main account in error. There was no accusation that our client fraudulently opened the account or was involved in opening the account in any manner. One of our New York criminal lawyers argued that our client believed this was a line of credit or an account which she had permission to access. Fortunately, after discussions with counsel for the bank and with the detective, the bank agreed to withdraw any charges of Grand Larceny once our client paid back the money that she withdrew. Not only did our client avoid an acknowledgment of wrongdoing and an arrest for a "D" felony (New York Penal Law 155.35), but she circumvented any issues with her career and employment. Our client had faced up to two and one third to seven years in prison if arrested and convicted.

While this case, like every other, is unique and the results here in no way guarantee similar results in future cases, it was certainly handled the proper way. Instead of continuing to argue the merits of the arrest and the likelihood prosecutors would prevail at trial, we found a way to avoid the time, cost and uncertainty of being thrown into the criminal justice system. Without admitting any type of guilt, our client paid back the monies withdrawn from the account. With money in hand and without the concern of their staff being cross examined as to the errors that resulted in the money being incorrectly deposited into our client's account, the bank "dropped" the charges.

For further reading on the crimes of Grand Larceny in New York, including Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, please follow the highlighted link. Information about Grand Larceny as well as legal rulings, cases in the news and other criminal statutes, is located on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

The New York Grand Larceny Lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent those accused of theft crimes throughout the New York City metropolitan area. Prior to starting the New York criminal defense firm, both founding partners served as prosecutors in the New York County (Manhattan) District Attorney's Office.

The Rockland County District Attorneys Office has announced the arrest of Joyce Bidnick, a New City Little League volunteer. It is alleged that Ms. Bidnick, the league's treasurer, had embezzled in excess of $100,000 over the course of nearly eight years. It is further claimed by prosecutors that Ms. Bidnick hid her alleged theft by falsifying records and invoices. Although it is not clear as to all the charges Ms. Bidnick is facing, a theft exceeding $50,000 is considered Grand Larceny in the Second Degree. Additionally, it would not be surprising if Ms. Bidnick was charged with other crimes including Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. These two crimes are "C" and "E" felonies punishable by up to fifteen and four years in state prison respectively.

According to reports, Ms. Bidnick is being held in custody with bail in the amount of $100,000. It is not apparent at this time whether or not a Grand Jury has indicted her. The Grand Jury must indict her within six days of her arrest or a preliminary hearing must be held. If not, the court must release Ms. Bidnick if her attorney has not consented to certain legal procedures. Whether or not Ms. Bidnick is released, the District Attorney's Office has six months to have a Grand Jury indictment and answer ready for trial (subject to many legal qualifications).

Extensive information on the crimes of Grand Larceny and Falsifying Business Records can be found through each link. Beyond this information, the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog is a source of educational material on the New York Penal Law, legal decisions and cases in the news.

The New York criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused throughout the New York City region. Prior to starting the firm, both founding attorneys served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. continues to pursue white collar crime with equal passion as his predecessor, Robert Morgenthau. According to the New York County District Attorney's Office, four Lehr Construction executives, as well as the company itself, were indicted by a New York County Grand Jury in connection to allegedly rampant fraud netting those executives in excess of $30 million. Approximately 14 months after Lehr Construction offices were raided, the police arrested Jeffrey Lazar, Todd Phillips, Steven Halper and Steven Wasserman to face a multi-count indictment that includes the "B" felony charge of Enterprise Corruption.

DA Vance and his lieutenants claim that Mr. Lazar, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Halper and Mr. Wasserman bilked subcontractors and clients by increasing alleged construction costs between 10 to 13 percent. This "over-invoicing" scheme was allegedly concocted by Lehr executives. According the the District Attorney's Office:

"Lehr executives created a document known as the 'Bid Package,' which required that every subcontractor who submitted a bid to Lehr on a [construction management] project inflate its bid by including a series of suspect labor 'contingencies.' These 'contingencies' added anywhere from 10 to 13 percent to the true bid submitted by the subcontractor. After a subcontractor was chosen by the client in consultation with Lehr, that subcontractor would negotiate directly with Lehr and agree upon a reduced actual price for the subcontractor’s work on the project. Lehr and the subcontractor would further agree upon an inflated purchase order price that would be submitted by Lehr to the [construction management]client. The difference between the inflated purchase order price and the actual negotiated price for the subcontractor’s work constitutes the majority of the money being stolen from the [construction management]client. This process would be repeated with most of the subcontractors working on the project, and subcontractors would “hold” the profits from the inflated bills for Lehr.

Lehr would later recover these stolen monies through several methods, including having subcontractors perform work on [general contracting] projects at the reduced rate, thereby increasing Lehr’s profits, or having the subcontractor perform extra work on a particular project at no cost. "

According to reports by local news media, additional business, sub-subcontractors and other individuals may be targets for future arrests and indictments. Certainly, this is not the last the public will hear of these allegations. For these men, however, the potential for incarceration is enormous and may impact their lives well after this case becomes a distant memory. Innocent until proven guilty, Mr. Lazar, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Halper and Mr. Wasserman face the crime of Enterprise Corruption, Grand Larceny in the Second through Fourth Degrees and Scheme to Defraud. Mr. Halper faces the additional crime of Money Laundering in the Second Degree. Enterprise Corruption is a "B" felony punishable by a mandatory minimum of one to three years in state prison and a maximum of eight and one third to twenty five years in state prison. The "C" felonies of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree and Money Laundering in the Second Degree carry a maximum term of prison of five to fifteen years while the "D" felony of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree carries a potential sentence of two and one third to seven years. Lastly, Scheme to Defraud and Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree are both "E" felonies punishable by up to one and one third to four years in state prison.

It is worth noting that the men were not charged with Grand Larceny in the First Degree for a theft in excess of $1 million despite the allegation of a theft in excess of $30 million. The likely reason for this is that aggregation often occurs (adding the thefts together) where the victims are the same. Here, it appears that there may be different victims with different theft counts. While prosecutors may be able to aggregate from different victims where the scheme is the same, doing so would likely create unnecessary legal issues and would not have any impact on the admissible evidence before the court.

For in depth analysis of the crimes or Enterprise Corruption and Grand Larceny, please follow any of the highlighted links above. Additional information on these and other crimes, as well as interesting cases in the news and legal decisions, is located on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Established by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal law firm focused on defending those accused of crimes in New York City and the region.

Crotty Saland PC, a New York criminal defense firm, is pleased to announce the dismissal of all charges against a client accused of possessing fifteen forged, fraudulent and fake credit cards and gift cards. Moreover, our client was alleged to have possessed a credit card scanner. In total, our client was accused of thirteen counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 170.25), one count of Criminal Possession of a Forgery Device (New York Penal Law 170.40) and thirteen counts of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 170.20). If convicted our client faced up to seven years in state prison.

The police stopped the car where our client was a front seat passenger after they claimed the driver failed to signal. Upon stopping the car, the police demanded that our client exit the vehicle. At that point the police allegedly retrieved a credit card scanner as well as fifteen total credit cards and gift cards from the floor of the vehicle. The police claimed this was all in "plain view." It was further alleged that the account numbers on the cards belonged to different account holders and were stolen. Furthermore, some of the cards had either our client's name on them or the co-defendant driver's name.

The issue addressed with prosecutors was not whether or not our client was aware of the credit cards or was involved in the crime. Whether one is guilty of any criminal activity or innocent of the same, the police must still follow the law. As easily as these two men were wrongfully stopped and searched, the same could happen to an "innocent" man or woman. After denying that the driver failed to use his signal to turn (this was the means for the police to stop a "suspicious" vehicle driven by two young men), we further denied that anything at all was in "plain view." In fact, the driver of the vehicle just had his vehicle detailed about an hour or two before. We argued that claims by the police that the driver and the passenger would be so brazen or stupid to throw contraband around the car even after it was just detailed (there was no evidence of other property strewn about) was not realistic. Moreover, we explained to prosecutors that a video from the parking area where our client was pulled over would reflect would truly transpired and corroborate the illegal search as well. Finally, even assuming there was a failure to signal, we argued that a dozen or more credit cards or gift cards with the name of the passenger and driver on them does not give rise to probable cause to arrest or search a vehicle. Certainly, the police would not arrest you and your wife if you failed to signal and they found credit cards in your names strewn over the floor. Arguably, multiple credit cards in the name of other individuals might alter this, but where is there probable cause if the credit cards are in the names of the individuals in the car?.

After some time, prosecutors, likely sensing there was an issue with the stop and search of the vehicle, offered a misdemeanor. This offer was rejected. Prosecutors came back with an offer of Disorderly Conduct, a violation. This too was rejected. Ultimately, the case was dismissed in its entirety and our client has maintained his clean record.

While nobody condones criminal activity, New York criminal lawyers must ensure that police and law enforcement do not step beyond their permitted roles. A "guilty" person or an "innocent" person can each easily be stopped and searched without the legal basis or in an impermissible way. The end cannot justify the means. Fortunately, the evidence, or lack thereof, in this particular case was presented in a powerful way for our client. Certainly, this result does not and cannot guarantee a similar result in any future case, but it ended in the best possible way for this young man.

For comprehensive information on the crimes of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument as well as Criminal Possession of a Forgery Device, please follow the highlighted links. For additional information on these crimes as well as other criminal statutes, court decisions and commentary on cases in the press, please read the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Representing the accused throughout the New York City area, the New York criminal defense lawyers and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC handle all stages of criminal litigation from investigation through trial.