New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

Make no mistake. 34 year old wannabe rapper, Raymond Velasquez, is a little past his "aspiring" years, but deserves some credit for his energy and ambition. While his arrest for disrupting NYC traffic and intentionally disregarding the police may not be worth the attention he has brought upon himself, prosecutors in Cyrus Vance's Manhattan District Attorney's Office may have been equally ambitious in their charging decisions. Certainly, it appears that Mr. Velasquez, aka, "CI Joe" was disorderly and there is a strong argument that he trespassed when he climbed the utility pole, but is the Alicia Keys lover boy guilty of Reckless Endangerment?

According to New York Penal Law section 120.20, one is guilty of Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree when he or she acts so recklessly that his or her conduct creates a substantial risk (not just any risk) of serious physical injury (not just any injury). Now, digging a little deeper, let's examine some critical definitions here. First, "substantial" is obviously more likely than a mere "chance" or "possibility." More importantly, "serious physical injury," according to the New York Penal Law, is not just any injury, but one that could cause death.

Now, don't get me wrong, prosecutors have a legitimate reason as to why individuals should be prevented from climbing utility poles. Whether you are "GI Joe" or "CI Joe," climbing one of those could certainly cause damage to taxpayer property (an appropriate charge would then be Criminal Mischief). Moreover, traffic could be snarled (an appropriate charge would be Disorderly Conduct). Depending on the conduct of the climber, many other charges could be brought as well. Here, however, it appears that other than rapping, dropping a couple CDs, and making a fool of himself, the criminal nature of his actions were non-existent. As I understand the facts, how dropping CDs from fifteen feet caused a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury (it is relevant as to when he started dropping these and how many) is beyond me. Of course, prosecutors could go with the Ralphie "Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle Theory" of poking out one's eye. In that case, the videos posted all over the web would have to establish some risk to the police who did not appear overly concerned or the pedestrians who were pushed blocks away.

Again, Assistant District Attorneys in Manhattan have a very good reason to prosecute offenses such as this. There is little doubt that Mr. Velasquez perpetrated at least a violation. However, there is equally little doubt that his actions as seen on the videos and reported through the media (if true of course) in no way rises to the crime of Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree.

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

Often times, prosecutors in the New York City area (Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Westchester Counties) offer first time shoplifters as well as those accused of other thefts, weapon crimes and personal drug possession, a violation of Disorderly Conduct (New York Penal Law 240.20). Depending on the facts and circumstances, a "Dis Con" could be a tremendous disposition. However, such a violation does have its draw backs. One of the most common is that a Disorderly Conduct may seal, but may show up on a background check. The other issue with a Disorderly Conduct is that while you will not have to ever state you were convicted of a crime, you technically have been arrested. Therefore, should an employer or an employment application ask whether you have ever been arrested, you will have to answer in the affirmative.

As I have written time and time again (and fought for my clients in each and every case of this nature), it is often worth one's time to reject a Disorderly Conduct and fight for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal or ACD. In these cases, not only is there no conviction of any kind, but the case is both dismissed and sealed in six to twelve months depending the nature of the underlying offense. Another benefit that is often not addressed is equally important.

According to New York Criminal Procedure Law section 170.55(8), when one is granted an ACD, not only does the law provide that one will not suffer any type of "disability" as a result, but the initial arrest and subsequent prosecution are considered a "nullity." Furthermore, one is put back into the same position one was in prior to the arrest and prosecution.

Obviously, whether you are charged with New York Penal Law sections 155.25, 165.40, 265.01, 220.03 or any other crime, an ACD disposition can minimize the collateral consequences of the initial arrest. New York State law specifically sets forth a statute that deems your arrest a "nullity." Under the eyes of New York law, your arrest did not happened and you are "restored" to your pre-arrest status.

While a technical reading of New York Criminal Procedure Law section 170.55(8) establishes the "nullity" arrest result, the practical questions for one who is the recipient of an ACD are evident. Merely because New York State says in her laws that your arrest is a nullity, does that mean in fact you were never arrested? After all, you were handcuffed and printed. If, according to New York State law, your arrest is nullified, can you assert to an employer or on an employment application that you have never been arrested? What, if anything, will federal or other state authorities know about your case and arrest? What are the consequences of relying on the statute and denying your arrest should you be asked these questions?

Certainly, having to deal with an ACD and these questions about whether you were arrested or not are far better issues to deal with in comparison to those related to criminal convictions or convictions for violations. While attorneys may differ in their responses to the 170.55 issue, it behooves you to have the "arrest conversation" with your counsel.

For related information on Desk Appearance Tickets in New York, please review NYDeskAppearanceTicket.Com

In depth information on felony and misdemeanor crimes as well as on the criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC, please review the Crotty Saland PC website. Lastly, extensive materials on criminal statutes, criminal procedures and legal decisions can be located throughout the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com.

When all the criminal laws in New York are reviewed, Trespassing in the Third Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law section 140.10, certainly is not one of the more complex laws. Having said that, it does not mean that complex legal issues will not arise for both New York criminal defense attorneys or prosecutors. Generally, one is guilty of Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree when he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a building and that property or building is fenced in, enclosed in a manner to exclude intruders or is a public housing project with the rules "conspicuously posted." Not a complete list of all means where one can be charged with Trespassing, the question posed in this entry is whether or not merely entering and exiting a housing project after five minutes is sufficient to establish the basis to ultimately stop, question and arrest a person. Fortunately, a Brooklyn Criminal Court judge recently answered this question.

In People v. Ortiz, 2010KN086039, NYLJ 1202495789148, a police officer accused a young woman of Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree. After going through the arrest and trial process, the case proceeded to hearings where a judge determined whether or not probable cause existed to arrest the accused.

In addition to other relevant testimony, the arresting officer stated at the hearing that he observed the defendant enter a public housing building alone at approximately 11:47 am. He further testified, without any detail, he had prior interactions with the accused. After approximately five minutes, the officer testified the the defendant exited the building and began speaking with a person outside. At that point, the officer approached the accused and asked her if she was visiting a person and what that person's name was. Ultimately, the defendant could not name a person and she was placed under arrest and in custody.

The Court's Decision

Pursuant to People v. DeBour, 40 NY2d 210 [1976], a police officer with the New York City Police Department (or any department or city) must have a credible objective reason for approaching a defendant. Time and time again, courts throughout New York have found that many differing factors can establish the necessary foundation for this reason. Here, however, solely emerging from a NYCHA building that has a posted a "no trespassing" sign, in and of itself, is not a credible objective reason to approach a person to request information under Debour.

In the case before the court, prosecutors failed to establish a credible reason to stop and question the defendant. While conducting a "vertical" in the building where a "sweep" is being conducted may lead to questioning, here there was little to no additional testimony. The officer did not testify what "prior interactions" had occurred or for that matter what those interactions consisted of. Moreover, the officer never testified, what, if any, complaints about this individual or trespassing had been previously made or what, if any, drug traffic or activity had occurred in the public housing. Beyond this, the officer failed to testify how, if at all, beyond coming out and engaging another person, how the defendant's conduct was apparently suspicious or criminal in nature. As a result, the court suppressed the statement alleged to have been made by the accused as well as the probable cause for her arrest.

The important lesson to take from this case is not that an individual cannot be arrested and successfully prosecuted for Criminal Trespass where he or she enters or exits a public housing building after five minutes. The real lesson is that the burden to establish probable cause to arrest an individual for any crime needs to be established beyond a reasonable doubt not by the defendant, but by the prosecution. Whether it is the high caliber of a criminal defense attorney or the lack of experience on the part of the prosecution, without this probable cause an entire case against an accused can and will crumble.

Founded by two former New York County Assistant District Attorneys, Crotty Saland PC represents those arrested for crimes throughout New York City and many surrounding suburbs. Beyond the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog, a wealth of information on crimes, statues and legal decisions can be found on the Crotty Saland PC website.

In New York City it is routine that an arrest for DWI, DUI or driving while intoxicated is accompanied by an on the scene intoxilyzer or BAC breath test. In other words, before you ever meet with your criminal lawyer or are handcuffed in the back of a police car, officers with the NYPD will administer an intoxilyzer test in the field. Although prosecutors, and DWI lawyers, often cite the results of this test to their advantage when possible, the legal question is as follows:

Can a breathilyzer or intoxilyzer test result be taken at the scene of a DWI arrest be used against an individual charged with a New York DUI crime such as VTL 1192.2 (Driving While Intoxicated) or VTL 1192.2-a (Aggravated Driving While Intoxicated)?

Although the above answer is well established and has been reaffirmed by many courts throughout the state, prosecutors in New York City - Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx - still attempt to create "new" law and push the legal envelope in all sorts of criminal matters (for better or for worse). Fortunately for one particular defendant, a New York City Criminal Court Judge was having none of it. In People v. Santana, 2010NY044345, NYLJ 1202495788641, Judge ShawnDya L. Simpson ruled against the prosecution after a New York County Assistant District Attorney attempted to introduce this field test result at trial as proof of intoxication. Simply put, the court, held that "field test results cannot be introduced as evidence in chief of defendant's intoxication." People v. Reed, 5 Misc. 3d 1032A (Bx. Co., Sup. Ct. 2004). In non-legal terms, not admissible as "evidence in chief" means that the field test result, as opposed to the intoxilyzer taken at the precinct subsequent to arrest, cannot be used by prosecutors in their direct case through their witnesses.

Jude Simpson further noted that:

"According to VTL §1194 (2) (a) and (b), the initial breath test and the subsequent chemical test serve difference purposes, the first determines if alcohol was consumed and the second determines the level of alcohol consumed. The statute does not provide that a field test is admissible as evidence in chief of defendant's intoxication and no such language will be read into the statute by this court. That the Intoxilyzer S-D2 [the portable field test intoxylizer] is listed as a devise approved to test blood alcohol content does not establish that the devise is admissible at trial to prove the defendant was legally intoxicated."

Why Field Intoxilyzer Not Admissible

The test in the field is not admissible in a case-in-chief for a few reasons. First, unlike an intoxilyzer examination at a precinct, tests conducted in the field are not videotaped for proof that the police administered the exam properly. Even assuming it was done correctly, for the people to introduce an intoxilyzer, the evidence must establish that the devise was properly calibrated within approximately six months of its use. See People v. Boscic, (15 N.Y.3d 494). Lastly, although not deservedly so, there is something in our set of laws called "due process." To admit this test result without advising the accused that it can and will be used against them at trial, would circumvent these rights that are the critical to the well being of our legal system.

Purpose & Use of the Field Intoxilyzer

Merely because a portable or field variety breathilyzer or intoxilyzer is not admissible at trial during the prosecution's case in chief, does not mean that the same has no value or is not relevant. In fact, as further recognized by the court, the test in the field is significant. Although the test results are not sufficiently reliable to establish intoxication before a jury or judge at trial, these results are part of and can even establish a police officer's probable cause to make a DWI arrest in New York City or anywhere else in New York State where the test is administered. In practical terms, if the field intoxilyzer is administered and the accused "blows" a .11, then the recording would form the basis of an arrest for Driving While Intoxicated pursuant to VTL 1192.2. Obviously, your attorney will challenge the basis of the stop of your vehicle and not merely concede this equally (if not even greater) factor in determining whether your arrest for DWI was legally permissible.

For extensive information about DWI laws in New York City as well as New York State, please review the detailed information on the DWI & DUI section of the Crotty Saland PC website. Additional materials from DWI case law to cases in the news can be found on the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Established by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent those accused of DWI and drunk driving crimes throughout the New York City region.

No criminal lawyer can say they have heard it all before (there is always a new and interesting wrinkle popping up in a case somewhere), but one thing is fairly consistent within the walls of the New York City courts. The judges, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys from Manhattan to Brooklyn and Queens to the Bronx routinely use their own unique language. While it certainly is not Cantonese, Greek or Hebrew, for most of those people charged with a crime, it could just as well be. While the following is far from a complete list of "criminal lawyer slang," it should at least be somewhat educational in its scope and address genuine legal terms. Obviously, consult with your own New York criminal lawyer as to your specific case and how these terms may or may not apply.

ACD

An Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal, or "ACD," is a non-criminal disposition to a case. There is no admission of guilt on the part of the accused. Upon prosecutors moving for such an offer, the matter is adjourned for six months (one year if it a domestic case or involves marijuana) and ultimately dismissed and sealed. In very limited circumstance the ACD and underlying arrest may be found.

ROR

Release on your ow Recognizance, or "ROR," is when a judge releases you without setting any bail

Plea to the Charge

A "plea to the charge" is a recommendation by a prosecutor that you plead guilty to the top or highest count in a misdemeanor information (complaint) or a felony indictment. In such a circumstance, no offer is being made.

Dis Con

A "Dis Con," or Disorderly Conduct, is a violation and not a crime. Although found in the New York Penal Law, a plea to section 240.20 would not give you a criminal record. However, it is imperative to discuss with your attorney the potential collateral issues associated with a "Dis Con."

30.30 & Speedy Trial

New York Criminal Procedure Law section 30.30 is a critically important statute. It relates to "speedy trial" or the time the prosecution has from arraignment to be ready for trial. A felony is six months, an "A" misdemeanor is 90 days and a "B" misdemeanor is 60 days. Discuss with your own counsel how the time is assessed and when it is either "ticking" or stopped.

Corrob or Supporting Dep

Most misdemeanor crimes that involve victims or witnesses beyond the police require a supporting deposition or a corroborating affidavit. When there is hearsay, a legal term used to describe a statement made by one party attributed to another for the purpose of establishing the truth as to what was said (confused?), a "corrob" or "supporting dep" is needed to cure this defect in the complaint against you. Without these papers, the case cannot proceed.

Grand Jury

The Grand Jury is the body of people that determines whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed with a felony charge. A Grand Jury can vote an indictment ("true bill"), vote a lesser offense or decide not to indict. In New York, you have a right to testify in the Grand Jury. However, it is important to note that not only can a Grand Jury "indict a ham sandwich," ie, the burden of proof is low, but should you decide to testify, no judge will be present and your lawyer cannot speak.

Indictment

Indictment is a document that sets forth the felony and misdemeanor charges against you. An indictment is the official document establishing that a Grand Jury determined there is enough evidence to proceed with at least one felony (and in some cases misdemeanors).

PSI

A Pre-Sentence Investigation, or "PSI" (also a Pre-Sentencing Report) is a report, usually drafted by probation, given to a judge prior to sentencing.

DAT

In New York City a "DAT," or Desk Appearance Ticket, is ticket requiring your appearance in court on a future date. This is given to some "E" felony offenses, but mostly non-domestic related misdemeanors where a person does not have a record and has ties to New York. If you do not go to court on the date specified, a warrant wlll be issued for your arrest.

Arraignment

An arraignment is when you will see a judge for the first time and be formally charged with a crime. You will have an attorney present who will likely plead "not guilty" on your behalf. What transpires on this date may have a significant impact on your case going forward.

Again, should any of these terms come up in your criminal case (some most definitely will), ask your attorney what they mean directly to you under your circumstances.

For additional information on the various New York Penal Law crimes as well as analysis of cases in the news and legal decisions, please search through the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog or review the Crotty Saland website.

A New York City law firm, Crotty Saland focus on representing clients in criminal investigations, arrests and trials. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, our New York criminal defense attorneys represent the accused in the New York City area.

District Attorneys and prosecutors through New York City - Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and Staten Island - routinely utilize their "long arms" to attack criminal schemes and grab targets of crime well beyond the borders of Gotham. Often times, New York criminal lawyers represent those accused of frauds and criminal transactions even though they never set foot in New York. Whether the crime is Enterprise Corruption, Grand Larceny or Money Laundering, theses defendants are prosecuted as if they had perpetrated their conduct right here in New York.

Beyond the crimes listed above, one of the more common crimes prosecuted beyond the borders of New York are crimes involving gambling. Of these gambling crimes, the felony of Promoting Gambling in the First Degree (NY PL 225.10) is one of the most typical. Generally, you are guilty of Promoting Gambling in the First Degree when you profit or knowingly advance from unlawful gambling activity. In addition to these elements, you must also be involved in bookmaking where you receive more than five bets valued in excess of $5,000 over the course of any given day. Not only is NY PL 225.10 a felony, but it is punishable by up to four years in state prison.

One of the issues that can arise in a large scheme involving gambling crimes is that even if you did not specifically accept or receive the necessary level of bets, you may be charged with acting in concert with others who did so. In other words, the woman who resided and worked in Florida can be charged as an accomplice for the crime committed in New York if her activities, intent and efforts assisted her "partner" in committing a gambling crime.

While there is not guaranteed means by which to best defend against a criminal charge of Promoting Gambling, sometimes the best defense is a good offense. It could be that the prosecution lacks direct or circumstantial evidence against you. It could be that a search of an apartment was illegal even though records where recovered there. Maybe the $5,000 cannot be properly established. Alternatively, your best defense may not be challenging the evidence if it is overwhelming, but mitigating your conduct. Obviously, this mitigation and the extent of its value in helping your case is something that you and your counsel will ascertain.

Utilizing the former defensive approach of mitigation, the criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC pursued a successful strategy as a defense to a New York felony gambling arrest. Our client, a lessee of a Manhattan apartment, was allegedly permitting illegal and unauthorized poker games to take place in her apartment. Even though she was a player in the alleged games, it was further alleged that she, acting in concert with others including dealers, accepted in excess of five bets and $5,000 a day in proceeds. Armed with search warrants, the New York City Police Department shut down the "crew." Although the sophistication and level of the scheme was a far cry from an offshore betting operation, our client was charged with felony Promoting Gambling in the First Degree as well as the misdemeanor crime of Possession of a Gambling Device (NY PL 225.30). In all, approximately a dozen people were arrested and charged with felonies and misdemeanors. Two unauthorized poker tables were shut down and proceeds were confiscated.

In face of a search warrant, an undercover police officer who posed as a "player," the fact that our client was the lessee of the apartment and that at the time of the arrest the defendants were alleged to have been engaged in playing poker, the decision was made not to push the case to trial, but to work out a favorable disposition. Without going into detail here, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC were able to convince the prosecutors to offer our client an alternative plea. That is, our client pleaded to the misdemeanor level crime of Promoting Gambling in the Second Degree, followed conditions of her plea and then returned to court. Upon doing so, the prosecution and court permitted our client to vacate her misdemeanor plea and then the District Attorneys Office moved for an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). As a result,the case was both dismissed and sealed. Fortunately, our client, a business professional in the financial arena, was able to move forward with her life without a criminal record after being charged with a felony offense as part of an alleged illegal poker crew.

The above client's case result is by no way a guarantee of future case results, but is illustrative of how easily your conduct can be wrapped up into a felony scheme. You need not be involved in organized crime overseas or running an illegal sports book in New Jersey. The long arm of the law has the ability to grab and prosecute almost anywhere.

For a wealth of information on Promoting Gambling and gambling related crimes in New York, please review either the Crotty Saland PC website or the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing the accused throughout the New York City region.

In New York State, if you knowingly possess property and that property is held by you for your benefit or to impede its recovery by the rightful owner, then the crime of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property has been perpetrated. This is true whether the possession of the property is in the context of taking a wallet off of a bar in White Plains, taking cash from a table at a restaurant in Brooklyn or shoplifting from a department store anywhere in New York City. Having said that, there is an interesting and critically important fact that can downgrade your offense. In other words, if you are charged with the "A" misdemeanor of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree (New York Penal Law 165.40), the crime may be knocked down to a lesser "B" misdemeanor of Attempted Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (New York Penal Law 110/165.40). The legal concept that forms the basis of this downgrade is known as legal impossibility. Often times this legal concept occurs in the area of sting operations set up by the police, but is not exclusive to sting operations.

The Court of Appeals, the highest level court in the State of New York, has grappled with the issue of legal impossibility in the past and has done so specifically in the context of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. In People v. Zaborski, 59 N.Y.2d 863 (1983), the Court upheld or re-affirmed a lower appellate court's decision that where police set up a sting involving the fencing of stolen property by supplying the property that was previously stolen, the completed crime of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property was not perpetrated and could not be perpetrated. The Court stated that "[a]t common law, goods once stolen but recovered and used by police for a subsequent sale were held to be no longer stolen, and a person who then received the goods could not be prosecuted for either receiving or attempting to receive stolen goods." Simply put, you cannot steal property that is not in fact stolen even though at one point it may have been. The Court further elaborated on the issue of legal impossibility and stated that "[a]lthough the goods sold to defendant were burglary proceeds, upon their recovery by police they lost their taint which thereby made it legally impossible for defendant to possess stolen property. It is irrelevant that, at the time of the sale to defendant, the true owners of the property had not been located; from the time of recovery, the police were, in effect, agents of the rightful owners holding the property on their behalf."

Obviously, a careful reading of this case is important. Equally important, the Court noted, as should you, that New York Penal Law 110.10 sets forth an important rule regarding legal and factual impossibility. It is no defense to any attempted crime charge, despite the old common law, that it was or is factually or legally impossible to commit that particular crime. Again, although the property in this case was no longer stolen and, thus, the accused could not possesses stolen property, because the requisite intent and physical actions existed, New York Penal Law 110.10 clearly states that the accused can still be liable for an attempt to commit the crime of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property.

Is it impossible in each and every circumstance for a sting operation to result in a completed theft crime? Is that assertion too broad? What if, for example, the property in question is never actually recovered by the police, but involved in a theft? There, the taint does not appear to have dissipated. Whether this legal theory is applicable in your case is something that should be examined by your own legal counsel. However, the relevancy and importance of this theory cannot be understated as it can make the difference, in certain circumstances, between an "E" felony and a lower "A" misdemeanor.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense law firm representing those charged with and investigated for theft and larceny related crimes in New York City. Founded by two former Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys, our criminal lawyers represent the accused throughout the New York City region.

For additional materials on Grand Larceny and Stolen Property crimes, please review either the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog or the Crotty Saland PC website. The former also contains extensive information on criminal statues as well as analysis of legal decisions and cases in the news.

Identity Theft, one of the most significant and frequently prosecuted crimes in New York City as well as the State of New York, is a growing concern for prosecutors and law enforcement. Although there are many New York criminal lawyers who have a general knowledge of the crimes and punishment associated with Identity Theft, they may not have a command of the statutes. Those statutes are New York Penal Law 190.78 (Third Degree Identity Theft), New York Penal Law 190.79 (Second Degree Identity Theft) and New York Penal Law 190.80 (First Degree Identity Theft). While Identity Theft in the Third Degree is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, Identity Theft in the Second and Third Degrees are "E" and "D" felonies punishable by up to four and seven years in state prison respectively.

Because many people do not fully understand the nuances of the Identity Theft criminal statutes, Crotty Saland PC has put together a New York Identity Theft Crime Information Page. The purpose of this page is not to give advice to those accused of Identity Theft crimes or to attorneys representing clients charged with Identity Theft offenses, but to be a source of education for anyone interested in learning more about New York criminal law.

Related New York Criminal Lawyer Blog Post:

New York Criminal Impersonation: A Distinct Crime from Identity Theft
Manhattan DA: Vance "Creates" Cybercrime and Identity Theft Bureau
Unlawful Possession of Personal Identifying Information: Does the Crime Require its Use
Unlawful Possession of a Skimmer Device: New York Penal Law 190.85

In depth information on the crimes of Identity Theft can be found through the link. Additional information on these and related crimes is located n the Crotty Saland PC website as well as the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Crotty Saland PC is a Manhattan based criminal defense firm representing the accused throughout the New York City region. Before starting the firm, our two founding New York criminal lawyers served in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office. Jeremy Saland served in the Trial Division and Identity Theft Unit Major Case Section while Elizabeth Crotty Served in both the Trial and Investigation Divisions.