New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

The New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC are pleased to announce a top disposition for a client charged with Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 145.05), Auto Stripping in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 165.09) and Attempted Petit Larceny (New York Penal Law 110/155.25). The most serious offense, NY PL 145.05, is an "E" felony punishable by up to four years in state prison.

Prosecutors alleged that our client, an individual who had previously been convicted of violating New York Penal Law 265.03 for possessing a loaded firearm, took a brick and smashed it through the back trunk window of a vehicle parked in Manhattan. After allegedly smashing out the window, our client is further alleged to have reached inside the vehicle in the presence of a plain clothes officer and an independent eyewitness. Ultimately, the police arrested our client and the owner of the vehicle assessed the damage at $1,000. Charged with a felony, and previously convicted of a violent felony, prosecutors offered our client a "sweetheart" deal of a misdemeanor plea and restitution. Unhappy with the offer, our client, who was represented by a "public defender," consulted with and retained Crotty Saland PC.

Upon reviewing the case, our criminal attorneys determined that significant issues existed that fortified our client's defense despite the police officer and independent witnesses' observations. Although much was on the line should prosecutors present the case against our client to the Grand Jury and a misdemeanor offer was rejected, we advised our client to pursue a better disposition than the one offered.

Fairly straight forward, one is guilty of Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree if he or she, without permission, intentionally causes damage to another person's property in an amount that exceeds $250. While the facts and allegations against our client seemed equally clear, when we dissected the matter further we learned that our client obtained a prescription for ambien (a drug used to aid in sleeping) earlier that day. Using that medication to sleep, our client asserted that he had no recollection of the incident for which he was arrested. Research revealed that one of the side effects of ambien is "sleepwalking." Not merely relying on the possibility that our client could have suffered from "sleepwalking" when the incident occurred, we further corroborated our client's lack of intent to cause damage to the vehicle or steal from it. To that end, we were able to establish that at the time of the incident our client was wearing nothing other than shorts (no tee shirt, shoes, etc.). Moreover, our client had resided in a family owned building three doors down from where the vehicle was parked and served as a superintendant for over ten years at that location. Objectively, it made little to no sense that an individual who had no trouble with the law since a conviction in the 1990s would smash a vehicle window and attempt to steal from that vehicle in a location doors down from where our client owned a building. Moreover, if an individual would in fact attempt to steal from a car parked in a neighborhood where he or she is likely known to many residents, it is probable that the person would wear sneakers and a shirt so he or she could flee as quickly as possible.

Combining all of these factors together, the prosecution ultimately agreed to offer a better deal than the original misdemeanor offer. Avoiding a new criminal conviction, probation, community service or incarceration, our criminal attorneys convinced the District Attorney's Office to permit our client to plead to a violation of Disorderly Conduct. While an argument could have been made that our client should have sought a complete dismissal, the risk-reward analysis dictated that a non-criminal plea was the best possible disposition. At a minimum, it was exponentially better than either a misdemeanor or felony conviction.

To further educate yourself on any of the crimes listed above, including Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree, please follow the highlighted links above. To learn more about other crimes, please review the CrottySaland.Com website or the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com.

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

Note: Although this disposition is one of many tremendous results for a Crotty Saland PC client, past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each and every case is unique.

In a fairly atypical prosecution by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Cyrus Vance, Jr. and Company are spearheading a case in Manhattan Criminal Court against alleged "lone wolf" terrorist, Jose Pimentel. It is alleged that Pimentel was a step or two away from detonating a shrapnel filled pipe bomb somewhere in New York City in retaliation against the military's success against certain Muslim extremists. Pimentel faces up to twenty-five years in state prison if convicted not of the terrorism related offense that has galvanized the media, but for possessing an explosive type weapon.

According to reports, The New York City Police Department had been watching Pimentel for sometime after they learned of his alleged terroristic desires. In fact, it appears that Pimentel was the subject of NYPD scrutiny for well north of a year or two. While the story behind the investigation and ultimate arrest of Pimentel is fascinating, this blog entry will not address that investigation. Instead, the focus of this article is dissecting the offenses for which a Grand Jury may indict the accused.

Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree: NY PL 105.10(1)

An "E" felony, Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law 105.10(1), is punishable by up to one and one third to four years in state prison. The basic premise of this crime is that a person is guilty of this crime if he or she has the intent that an "B" or "C" felony transpire or take place. Assuming this intent exists, the accused must also agree with at least one other person to engage or cause the performance of the intended act.

Applying the statutory language to the allegations against Pimentel, there are critical factors that one must first understand. First, Mr. Pimentel is also charged with violating New York Penal Law 265.04(1), Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the First Degree. Although this offense will be addressed further below, NY PL 265.04 satisfies one element of the Conspiracy charge as it is a "B" felony.

Another essential element to Conspiracy is that the accused not act alone. Although reports describe Pimentel as a "lone wolf," he is still charged with Conspiracy. Practically speaking, how can Pimentel be a "lone wolf" yet also be seeking to "join forces" with other co-conspirators? To answer this question, one must dig a little deeper.

According to New York Penal Law 105.30, it is no defense to a prosecution for Conspiracy that due to legal incapacity, unawareness, or to other factors precluding the mental state required for the commission of Conspiracy or the actual crime, the alleged co-conspirator or conspirators could not be guilty of the Conspiracy or the intended crime. That made no sense, did it? Let's try that again below...

In non-legal jargon, it makes no difference if you sought to detonate a bomb, as a conspirator with another person, but ultimately did so alone because there was no other party that shared your intent or desires. You could still be guilty of Conspiracy if you believed you had co-conspirators in your plot. It would make no difference in the eyes of New York State whether your co-conspirators had no intent in following through or were undercover police officers. In fact, even if your alleged co-conspirators were acquitted at trial, it would still be possible for a jury to unilaterally convict you of Conspiracy.

Although the Conspiracy charge against Pimentel is certainly interesting in terms of how the crime is prosecuted in this particular scenario, it is by no means close to the most serious offense for which the defendant faces.

Soliciting Providing Support for an Act of Terrorism in the Second Degree: NY PL 490.10(1)

A "D" felony, Soliciting or Providing Support for an Act of Terrorism in the Second Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law 490.10(1), is punishable by up to seven years in state prison. Pimentel would be guilty of this crime if he intended that material support or resources would be used to plan, prepare, carry our or aid in either an act of terrorism or the concealment of the same. Additionally Pimentel must have raised, solicited, collected or provided material support or resources.

To better understand this statute, one must review all of the underlying definitions of this crime. One of those terms is "act of terrorism." An "act of terrorism" includes any act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population. Certainly, if true, prosecutors could make a powerful argument that detonating a pipe bomb filled with shrapnel in New York City would be an act of intimidation.

A second legal term, "material support or resources," also needs defining. This term is extremely broad and includes, but is not limited to, weapons, lethal substances and explosives.

Again, in non-legal jargon, in order for the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to successfully prosecute Pimentel they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the intent that a weapon or explosive be used to carry out an act to intimidate a civilian population and that Pimentel collected or provided these explosives or weapons in order to do so.

Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the First Degree: NY PL 265.04(1)

Although a crime that has no legal element that involves terrorism, Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the First Degree is the most serious offense facing Pimentel. In fact, should the alleged terrorist be convicted of New York Penal Law 265.04(1), he would face a minimum of five years and maximum of twenty-five years in state prison. It is not unlikely that a judge would sentence Pimentel closer to the latter should he be convicted after trial.

The easiest crime to understand, one is guilty of CPW 1 if one possesses an explosive substance with the intent to use it unlawfully against another person.

As brief and concise as possible, theses are the main charges that prosecutors will likely present to the Grand Jury in the case against Pimentel. Whether there are other crimes, the defendant's attorney seeks to have his client testify or examined for mental stability, or some other interesting storyline plays out, Vance and his gaggle of prosecutors will have much to chat about beyond ATM machines and steakhouse waiters as they gobble on turkey, stuffing and a sides of cranberry later this week.

To learn more about the crimes listed above, including Criminal Possession of a Weapon, follow the highlighted links to the particular offense or to CrottySaland.Com.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York City criminal defense firm representing those accused of crimes throughout the metropolitan area. The New York criminal lawyers who founded Crotty Saland PC both served as prosecutors under Robert Morgenthau in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.

While they may be best known for serving choice cut steaks, a few of New York's most famous steakhouses may need to add an arrest profile to their Zagat's ratings. According to reports, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr.'s prosecutors busted a credit card fraud ring allegedly run by men and women whose day jobs were to serve as waiters at some of New York's flagship restaurants. From Smith and Wollensky, Capital Grille and Wolfgang's Steakhouse in Manhattan to Morton's in Stamford and the Bicycle Club in New Jersey, it is alleged that more than two dozen arrested waiters dined on patrons' credit card numbers as their unsuspecting customers grazed on filet mignon, porterhouse and the occasional rib eye (bone in, of course). Although the allegations have yet to fully materialize, it is alleged that these waiters stole approximately fifty account numbers from the high-end credit cards, including the fabled American Express Black Card, and used these account numbers to go on expensive shopping sprees.

The means by which these accused waiters perpetrated the Enterprise Corruption, Identity Theft (although not technically charged with this crime), Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and other crimes is clear. The alleged fraudsters used hand held skimming devices to kick off the alleged scam. Fairly easy to purchase online, these devices can be hidden in one's palm and can scan a credit card in the time it takes to take one swipe. Once the reader glides over the magnetic strip, the account number is then stored for later use. Armed with the credit card numbers, the alleged defendants then encoded a new credit card with the stolen account number.

In two distinct twists that I have seen as a former Manhattan prosecutor and member of the Identity Theft Unit Major Case section, the fraudsters would encode either a completely fake credit card with the stolen account number or a "real" credit card that may have expired or is no longer legitimately being used. Depending how advanced or eager a team of thieves was, either a fraudulent identification was used to match the fake credit card or the legitimate matching identification was utilized where the credit card was a modified, yet properly issued, instrument. It is worth noting that in schemes such as these, a retailer or service provider who accepts the encoded credit card can often catch the fraudster if he or she is diligent. In many cases, a receipt that is printed contains the name of the proper or correct cardholder. While the name on an encoded card and fake identification will match, the name printed on the receipt will reflect the rightful accountholder.

In this arrest and indictment, the alleged credit card fraudsters used over $1,000,000 in ill-gotten gains to make purchases at high-end stores including Chanel. In fact, according to the Manhattan District Attorney's Office press release "[s]earch warrants executed yesterday in conjunction with the investigation resulted in the seizure of luxury goods, including more than $1 million worth of luxury watches and a cache of expensive wine, and...$1.2 million in cash; as well as skimming devices and the equipment necessary to manufacture fraudulent credit cards and driver's licenses."

What will be interesting to learn as this case develops is what roles did each person have. Although prosecutors have alleged it existed, was this crew truly a criminal enterprise and therefore subject to Enterprise Corruption? Merely because prosecutors give titles to or characterize defendants as "manager," "skimmer," "shopper" and "complicit customers" does not automatically mean there is an ascertainable structure where the members all worked toward the single criminal goal. Certainly, if true, these defendants will face a significant risk of prison.

Additionally, what, if anything, did these defendants state when they were arrested? Do prosecutors have video surveillance of purchases, signatures on fraudulent receipts or records linking certain waiters serving customers whose cards were later compromised? While I have my ideas of possible means to defend against these allegations, what defense strategy will ultimately prevail? Again, many of the defendants are charged as part of the criminal enterprise and are facing mandatory state prison on a "B" felony if convicted. A defense needs to be identified and implemented soon.

Although many people may wish that it was, Identity Theft is not going away. While many New York's may have been rightfully concerned when Jimmy McMillin preached during the gubernatorial election that the "rent is too damn high," denizens of the Big Apple should have a much greater concern. Make no mistake. Identity Theft is too damn easy.

WHO: Approximately two dozen waiters at top New York City and suburban steakhouses including Smith and Wollensky, Capital Grille, Wolfgang's, Morton's and the Bicycle Club. Defendants include: RICHARD BERTELETTI, JACOB BLUMENFRUCHT, ERIC BRAHMS, EMILY BRUMFIELD BRAHMS, DANIEL BURNS, ELLE CHONG ROZAN a/k/a ELOISE A. CHONG, ANTHONY COFFARO, MICHAEL DEJESUS, JOSE FELIX FERNANDEZ, KENNETH FRANQUIZ, DAVOR GONCIN, IZAK IRWIN GUTMAN, LUIS DAMIAN JACAS, a/k/a DAMIEN JACES, EDDIE KYLE, ANTHONY MARRA, PETER McGUIRE, JENNIFER MORGAN, JAMES O'CONNELL, RICHARD REICHBACH, TASHA ROSENHAUS, MARTHA RUBIANO, SASHA SCOLLIN and BRIAN TORREY.

ALLEGATION: Swiping and stealing high-end credit card account numbers from patrons, encoding fraudulent credit cards with that information and using the credit cards to make purchases.

CRIMES: B felony of Enterprise Corruption. Minimum of one to three years and maximum of eight and one third to twenty five years in prison for a first time offender. C felony of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree. Potential punishment up to five to fifteen years for a first time offender. D felony of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree. Potential punishment of up to two and one third to seven years in prison for a first time offender. E felonies including Conspiracy in the Fourth Degree, Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree and Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree. Potential punishment of up to one and one third to four years in prison for a first time offender.

PROSECUTING AGENCY: Manhattan District Attorney (New York County)

To learn about the New York crimes of Enterprise Corruption, Identity Theft, the multiple degrees of Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and other offenses, please follow the highlighted links back to CrottySaland.Com. There you will also find links to the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com where you will find analysis of not merely criminal statutes, but legal decisions interpreting those statutes and reviews of cases in the New York area news. In addition to these resources, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC anticipate that NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com and associated blog at NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com will have further relevant and practical information on white collar theft offenses once they go "live" by the end of November 2011.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing those accused of white collar, theft and fraud crimes throughout the New York City region.

According to Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes, a scamming former stock broker managed to cheat and lie his way back into the 1% at the expense of fellow one percenters and on the backs of the 99% as well. While the arrest and indictment of Boris Shteyngart will likely not stop the #OWS from disrupting lower Manhattan on Thursday, it may send a strong message to would be thieves in Kings County. It is alleged in a multi-count indictment that Shteyngart defrauded a dentist from the "Show Me State" out of $142,000 and an 84 year old retiree out of $10,00 which consisted of a significant portion of the latter's life savings. All of this, according to Brooklyn prosecutors, was stolen and used to support Shteyngart's lifestyle.

DA Hynes claims that Shteyngart perpetrated his criminal scheme by "cold calling" potential investors. At some point after his alleged victims began to trust him, Shteyngart would convince these "investors" to send him money by wire transfer or check payable to "Bori." Once he received these checks, prosecutors allege that Shteyngart merely added an "s" next to "Bori." Not rocket science, "Bori" became "Boris" and Shteyngart was able to deposit the checks in his own account. In total, prosecutors believe the scheme netted the defendant approximately $200,000.

The indictment charges Shteyngart with Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a "C" felony punishable by as much as five to fifteen years for a first time offender. Additionally, the indictment charges the defendant with the "D" felonies of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree and Forgery in the Second Degree. Both of these crimes are punishable by up to two and one third to seven years in state prison. An "E" felony, the indictment also charges Shteyngart with Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree. This offense is the least significant felony crime, but is still punishable by up to one and one third to four years in prison. Beyond these felonies, Shteyngart is also charged with Criminal Impersonation in the Second Degree, an "A" misdemeanor.

Although the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office press release indicates that the defendant faces up to 40 years in state prison, such a sentence is far from likely. While many factors, including Shteyngart's ability to pay back his victims, may mitigate his conduct, according to press coverage of the case, the defendant is not trying to mitigate his actions. In fact, his attorney has publicly denied the allegations and asserted that investigators rushed to judgment. For Shteyngart's sake, I hope his attorney is right.

On an interesting side note, this indictment comes on the heals of another white collar bust in Manhattan where Cyrus Vance, Jr. announced the indictment of three men in a debit card skimming scheme that allegedly netted the accused nearly $300,000 from numerous victims. Both these indictments make it overwhelmingly clear that white collar, larceny and theft crimes are still thriving in New York and beyond.

To learn more about the crimes of Grand Larceny, and Forgery, please follow the highlighted links above to the Crotty Saland website. There you will not only find detailed information about these statutes, but links to the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com. The blog, another excellent source of information, contains analysis of criminal statutes, legal decisions further defining those crimes, and cases that have played out in the New York City news.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent those accused of white collar crimes throughout the New York City region.

Additional resources for New York larceny crimes can be found at the NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com website and NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com going "live" in the next couple of weeks.

As prolific as the drug trade was in Manhattan and all of New York City from the 1970s through the 1990s, Identity Theft has easily surpassed it. In fact, Identity Theft and related crimes have crept into almost every business - private and public - well beyond the offices and apartments of Gotham. Arguably, Identity Theft, in terms of the volume of crimes perpetrated and the associated damages, makes almost every other offense in the New York Penal Law seem pedestrian. Case in point, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance just unsealed an 81 count indictment against Nikolai Ivanov, Dimitar Stamatov and Iordan Ivanov for allegedly committing a fairly common and easy to execute scheme. Although this indictment is "insignificant" when compared to the Queens District Attorney's Office's indictment of over 100 people in a multi-million dollar Identity Theft scheme, It is alleged that N. Ivanov, Stamatov and I. Ivanov scammed as many as 1500 people by placing skimming devices and disguised cameras on ATMs early this year. These ATM machines, located in Astor Place, Union Square and the East Village, were treasure troves of personal information that prosecutors claim were used to help the defendants steal nearly $300,000.

The alleged debit card skimming scheme, one that is routinely perpetrated throughout New York and other cities and states, was fairly easy to pull off. It is claimed that the defendants placed devices on the "mouth" or access point where a customer would slide his or her debit card into an ATM machine. As the customer conducted his or her regular business, a hidden video camera pointed at the keypad recorded the PIN number or code used to access the bank accounts. With this information, the defendant's then allegedly accessed the bank accounts at different locations in New York, Canada and other states. It is alleged by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office that the defendants placed eleven different skimming devices at four separate Manhattan ATM locations. Ultimately, however, it is alleged that one of the Ivanov brothers, along with Stamatov, was arrested in May when he attempted to retrieve one of the skimming devices in Manhattan.

Make no mistake. Each of these defendants faces significant charges relating to their alleged actions. These crimes include Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, Identity Theft in the First Degree, Burglary in the Third Degree, Criminal Possession of Forgery Devices, Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Larceny in the Fourth Degree, and Petit Larceny. Other than Petit Larceny, these crimes range from a "C" felony punishable by up to fifteen years in prison to "D" and "E" felonies punishable by up to seven and four years in prison respectively.

It appears from the press release that evidence against the defendants is both direct and circumstantial. Obviously, if true, detectives arrested the defendants with or as they were retrieving skimming devices. Certainly, it is possible that these devices had already recorded account information. Furthermore, there may have been recordings from surveillance videos at points of compromise or withdrawal locations. Additionally, prosecutors may link compromised accounts to other accounts that were accessed at ATMs during the same date and times. Only a fraction of potential evidence, if the defendants admitted to the criminal actions it would further strengthen the prosecution's case. What will happen to these defendants and the defensive strategy they implement is yet to be seen, but will likely play out over the next few weeks and months.

To learn more about the Identity Theft, Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Forgery Devices and Burglary, review the Crotty Saland PC website where each of these crimes is analyzed. Further relevant and practical information on these crimes can be found throughout the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com where statutes, legal decisions and cases in the news are assessed.

Additional resources for New York larceny crimes can be found at the NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com website and NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyersBlog.Com going "live" by the end of November 2011.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. Representing the accused throughout the New York City region, one of our founding New York criminal lawyers, Jeremy Saland, served in the Identity Theft Unit Major Case Section.

In New York City as well as the outside counties of Westchester and Rockland, Drunk Driving (a/k/a DWI or DUI) is a crime that is routinely prosecuted. Unlike intentionally malicious crimes, DWI allegations found in VTL 1192 are often alleged against hard working, honest and generally law abiding people who may have had a lapse in judgment. Fortunately, DWI lawyers in New York who are experienced in defending clients against drunk driving arrests may be able to protect their client's limited right to drive while a suspension is pending. Commonly known as a "Hardship Hearing," if granted by a New York court (it makes no difference whether the DWI allegation occurred in Manhattan, Brooklyn, White Plains or Yonkers), an individual accused of DUI may be able to drive, for example, to and from work and for other limited purposes. Keep in mind that a Hardship Hearing can be granted in cases involving VTL 1192.2 for "blowing" in excess of .08 on a breathalyzer (actually an intoxilyzer) as well as VTL 1192.3 cases as long as the latter is not for a refusal,

The Hardship Privilege: VTL 1193(2)(e)(7)(e)

Judges will suspend your right to drive in New York at your arraignment for a DWI crime, such as where you "blow" a .10 in an intoxilyzer, even if the court where your case is pending "finds that the suspension imposed...will result in an extreme hardship." However, in such cases a "hardship privilege" may be granted. As a result, if your DWI attorney is successful in arguing that you have an "extreme hardship," then you may be able to drive in limited circumstances.

Defining "Extreme Hardship"

An extreme hardship is defined by statute and is limited in scope. In short, an extreme hardship means an "inability to obtain alternative means of travel" to or from work, medical treatment or college.

How to Prove an "Extreme Hardship"

It is critically important to understand that merely stating it is difficult to travel to and from work, medical appointments for a child or classes at a university will not be sufficient to establish the hardship as required by law. In fact, the law does not permit a favorable finding (i.e., granting of a "hardship license") solely on the testimony of the defendant. Instead, other evidence would be necessary. This evidence can include testimony from other members of the household, maps of travel to and from work including the location of and times of service for public transportation, etc. If a hardship privilege is to be successful, it is important to discuss your method of proving that hardship with your criminal attorney well before you step into court. There is no substitute for preparation and the burden is yours.

When Can a Hardship Hearing be Granted

An arraignment cannot be adjourned beyond three days for the purpose of a Hardship Hearing. Practically speaking, in New York City an arraignment often time takes place and the matter is adjourned within this time frame to another courtroom within the three days.

Other Relevant Hardship Information

Even if your legal counsel is successful in establishing the "extreme hardship" (the burden is yours as opposed to the prosecution to establish that no hardship exists), your right to drive is limited. If you drive beyond that set forth on the record by the court, you may be arrested and charged with new crimes. Additionally, you should not confuse a Hardship Hearing with a Refusal Hearing. The latter occurs when your license is revoked for failure to comply with a lawful and proper request to supply some form of sample (usually breath) to law enforcement for the purpose of establishing your BAC. While a Hardship Hearing is conducted in a criminal or local court (outside of NYC), a Refusal Hearing is conducted by an administrative judge at the Department of Motor Vehicles. These two hearings are completely distinct and separate.

Although this entry is only a brief synopsis on a limited area of DWI laws, to further educate yourself on New York DWI crimes and DUI laws, please follow the highlighted link. There you will not only find extensive information on criminal statutes, but other useful links addressing legal decisions.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors who served under Robert Morgenthau and in the Trial Division and DWI Unit, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent those accused of DWI and DUI crimes throughout New York City and many suburban counties.

In a previous entry, I addressed the crime of Assault in the Third Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 120.00 as well potential deals or offers one could expect in New York City courts (as well as elsewhere in the state). Once again, if you intentionally (or recklessly) cause physical injury to another individual and thereby cause substantial pain, you have perpetrated this misdemeanor crime. Although there are very important nuances to this statute that can and should be addressed by an experienced New York criminal lawyer, the purpose of this blog entry is not to address the crime itself, but deals one might expect from the prosecution.

Outside of an outright dismissal, procedural dismissal ("speedy trial" and CPL 30.30), or acquittal at trial, there are few options other possible dispositions beyond what was previously addressed. The three remaining dispositions are as follows:

Disorderly Conduct (New York Penal Law 240.20)

Like Harassment in the Second Degree, Disorderly Conduct (NY PL 240.20), is a violation punishable by up to 15 days in jail. A plea to this violation will not result in a criminal record. The advantage of this plea over a Harassment plea is that a plea to Disorderly Conduct will require that you admit that you were disorderly as opposed to harassing and aggressive in nature. In short, there is not admission that you ever threatened or touched anyone or that there was a particular target of your actions. Even more relevant, however, a plea to Disorderly Conduct will seal (barring the plea agreement to waive sealing). Therefore, the record of the plea should not remain public. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Sadly, as observed from personal experiences dealing with clients and from anecdotal evidence from those who inquire about our services as criminal attorneys in New York, often time (I cannot say a particular percentage), a Disorderly Conduct and the underlying arrest will not seal fully. As a result, an employer, for example, may learn about this non-criminal conviction and underlying arrest after a background check. Having said that, if an ACD (as will be described below) is not available, a trial is not a viable option and there is no procedural defense, then a Disorderly Conduct will end the case without a criminal conviction.

Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD)

Barring an outright dismissal, a procedural speedy trial dismissal or an acquittal at trial where you are exonerated, an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal is the best deal one can get in a New York Assault case. I don't believe many, if any, criminal lawyers would dispute this. Not only is there no admission of wrongdoing in any capacity, but if you stay out of trouble for six months your case will not just be dismissed, but sealed as well. In the event the charge of Assault is domestic in nature, the ACD will run for one year. Keep in mind, that an ACD, granted pursuant to New York Criminal Procedure Law 170.55, results in your underlying arrest becoming a "nullity." While in no way should this blog entry be construed as advice in your particular case, you could arguably answer "no" to the question of whether you had ever been arrested. Clearly, before answering such a question in this manner, discuss your answer with you own criminal attorney.

The above synopsis, as well as the previous blog entry, on potential offers in a New York Third Degree Assault case (NY PL 120.00) is a general guideline to potential deals. Which offer, if any, is made in your case is likely a combination of the facts and evidence, your criminal history and your criminal defense lawyer's strategy for your defense. Whatever offer is made to you, it is important to educate yourself and consult with your attorney on the ramifications in terms of careers, licenses, immigration, etc., before agreeing to anything.

To read further practical information on Assault crimes in New York including statutes, legal decisions and cases in the news, please follow the highlighted link above to the CrottySaland.Com website and NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.com. Additional information on the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com is available to further address and define Disorderly Conduct and NY CPL 170.55.

Two other excellent resources for those who received New York City Desk Appearance Tickets for NY PL 120.00 are the NYDeskAppearanceTicket.Com website as well as the Desk Appearance Ticket section of CrottySaland.Com.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing those accused of Assault and other crimes in the New York City region.