New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

According to the New York Post, Jason Itzler, the self described "King of All Pimps" behind New York Confidential, was arrested again after prosecutors picked up the convicted felon for Promoting Prostitution, Money Laundering and Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance. Itzler had previously been convicted in New York County upon a plea of guilty to Money Laundering and Promoting Prostitution. Ultimately, Itzler served less than two years in state prison. Because he is a predicate felon, should prosecutors be successful the second time around, prison is mandatory for itzler. In an interesting side story at the time and currently worth noting, Itzler's counsel, Paul Bergrin, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. It was alleged that the attorney took over his client's business and ran the escort service after his client was incarcerated. Bergrin is currently facing trial in New Jersey Federal Court on other matters.

It is alleged that Itzler re-created an online escort service in Manhattan. At some point he also is alleged to have sold cocaine.

Because of the past convictions and current allegations, the former pimp has many difficulties ahead. Due to the nature of these cases and the use of the internet for this type of commerce, it is likely that prosecutors have been investigating Itzler for some time while also taking a more pro-active approach in obtaining evidence and strengthening their case. Couple these circumstances with Itzler's MySpace page, where he last logged in September 8, 2011, that indicates his income is north of $250,000, there is little doubt prosecutors believe they have a strong argument for significant bail.

Should Itzler be convicted of these crimes, as noted above, he must go to prison. The likely degree of Promoting Prostitution he is charged with is a "D" felony punishable by a minimum of two to four years in prison and a maximum of three and one half to seven. If he is convicted of selling cocaine, he faces two to twelve years in prison. Lastly, Money Laundering can enhance his term of incarceration even higher. Assuming (it is merely an assumption) that the offense involved in excess of $50,000 but equal to or less than $1,000,000, Itzler would face three to six years minimum and up to seven and one half to fifteen years in prison.

For a wealth of information on New York Escort and New York Prostitution crimes, follow the highlighted link. A review of the Crotty Saland website will reveal practical and legal analysis of various statutes, legal decisions and cases in the news. There you will also find links to the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com where various areas of criminal law are broken down into relevant sections.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. The New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused in all criminal investigations, arrests and trials throughout the New York City region.

Although not arrested by Detective Frank Drebin, for seventeen individuals indicted in Brooklyn because of their alleged involvement in High Class NY, a New York City escort ring, this certainly is “some kind of a bust.” Unfortunately for them, however, there is nothing funny about the predicament they face. According to Charles Hynes, Kings County’s top prosecutor, "[th]ere is no such thing as a high-class pimp, and as we do with all other pimps, my office will prosecute these defendants and seek the maximum sentences available under the law.” Charged in the 144 count indictment, seventeen individuals, including Mikhail Yampolsky; his wife, Bronislava Yampolsky; his son, Alexander Yampolsky; his step-son, Jonathan Yampolskaya and alleged investors Efim Gorelik and Yakov Maystrovich, face some of the highest degree felonies in the New York Penal Code. In addition to these defendants, detectives also arrested Valerii Loboda, Irina Pobukovsky, Ilya Olshansky, Angelo Pascacello, Meredith Harford, Boris Ratovsky, Yury Gorelik, Pinia Ashkinadze, Alexey Senenov and Oleg Lechko. These men and women, as well as five corporations, face a multitude of crimes such as Enterprise Corruption, Promoting Prostitution, Money Laundering, and Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance.

If it is not overwhelming clear through DA Hynes’ statement, the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office firmly believes that this alleged crew of pimps and prostitutes, who also dabbled in narcotics and drug trafficking, is being treated not merely as individuals, but as an organized criminal institution. Enterprise Corruption, a “B” felony punishable by a mandatory minimum of one to three years in prison and a maximum of eight and one third to twenty five years in state prison for a first time offender, is New York’s version of the federal RICO statute. In charging this crime and arresting these individuals, prosecutors believe and must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that High Class NY operated with a structure that was both ascertainable in nature, ie, different levels of workers, with a common goal or purpose.

What is likely concerning to many johns (men who solicit prostitutes) and the defendants already indicted, is that credit cards were allegedly used to procure the services of prostitutes from High Class NY through websites such as HighClassNY.Com, DiscreteClub.Com, NY AdultDating.com, CupidDirect.Com, and AngelofYourChoice.com. These alleged escorts charged between $400 to as much as $3,600 an hour. It is further claimed by law enforcement that men paid up to $10,000 in one night. Whether or not these johns are contacted and questioned by law enforcement is yet to be seen, but the defendants may have created an easy trail of criminality in terms of ascertaining dates of “transactions,” monies spent and the names of these johns. Combine this with the ability of law enforcement to obtain records of login information, IP addresses and hosting information, this alleged evidence gives law enforcement the ability to more easily prosecute the charge of Money Laundering and Promoting Prostitution.

In addition to these crimes, prosecutors allege that when some of the johns booked the “models,” they were also supplied with drugs. In an attempt to allegedly cover up the Sheepshead Bay’s escort and prostitution service, contracts were created whereby “models” signed agreements not to engage in sexual activity with clients. Assuming this is accurate, the alleged ring members would have some difficulty solely using these contracts as a defense if evidence can show that they benefited financially or were involved in the sexual activity or drug trade.

According to the indictment, High Class NY made more than $7 million between September 2007 and November 2010. Moreover, both Gorelik and Maystrovich each invested $700,000 in the company. It is likely that this corroboration came through a variety of sources such as records from High Class NY as well as search warrants and wire taps.

I can only speculate (I only have information supplied through media outlets and the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office press release), but clearly some individuals will have stronger defenses than others. In part, this is because they operated outside of the structure or did not have their hands in narcotics trafficking. Moreover, the District Attorney’s Office will likely come down harder on different individuals due to their particular roles in the ring. What defense is set forth by the defendants and what defenses are viable will slowly and undoubtedly come to light over the next few weeks.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. The New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent those who are accused or crimes throughout the New York City region.

For extensive information on New York Prostitution crimes and related offenses follow the highlighted link. Additionally, a wealth of information on other crimes, including Enterprise Corruption, Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance and Money Laundering can be found on the Crotty Saland PC website as well as the New York Criminal Lawyer Blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ask anyone who has been accused of committing a crime. The mere accusation, even if he or she is vindicated later, is a humiliating experience. When one is accused of soliciting a prostitute, technically a violation New York Penal Law section 230.04, Patronizing a Prostitute in the Third Degree, this embarrassment is magnified exponentially. Make no mistake, an arrest for any offense requires a NY criminal defense attorney's direct attention. However, those in our communities may be more judgmental if they learn a neighbor is accused of Patronizing a Prostitute than if that same neighbor is accused of a more serious "white collar" crime. "Only" an "A" misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, Patronizing a Prostitute in the Third Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law 230.04 is defined as follows:

A person is guilty of Patronizing a Prostitute in the Third Degree when he or she patronizes a prostitute.

The crime of Patronizing a Prostitute has underlying definitions as well. As set forth in New York Penal Law section 230.02, A person patronizes a prostitute when:

(1)(a) you pay a fee to another person to engage in sexual conduct; or

(1)(b) you pay or agree to pay another person for that person or a third person to engage in sexual conduct with you; or

(1)(c) you solicit or request another person to engage in sexual conduct with you in return for a fee.

(2) As used in this article, "person who is patronized" means the person with whom the defendant engaged in sexual conduct or was to have engaged in sexual conduct pursuant to the understanding, or the person who was solicited or requested by the defendant to engage in sexual conduct.

Although I will not address all of the case law and underlying definitions associated with Patronizing a Prostitute in this entry, I have drafted previous entries discussing what courts deem "sexual conduct" and other relevant information. For further information on the crimes associated with prostitution and escort services in New York, please review the Escort & Prostitution section of the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com and the new-york-lawyers.org website.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the New York City region. Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC is located approximately one block from 100 Centre Street in downtown New York.

As long as the world's oldest profession is profitable, the police and prosecutors will continue to go on the offensive to busting up and tearing down escort and prostitution rings. Unfortunately for Kenneth Fuina and Shawana Smith, they were the targets of such an investigation by the Westchester County District Attorney's Office that spanned two years. Now, Fuina and Smith are sitting in a White Plains jail cell on $100,000 bail each and facing the charge of Promoting Prostitution in the Third Degree, a class "D" felony punishable by up to 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in state prison. A third defendant, Genevieve Peattie, was released from jail but is charged with a misdemeanor of Prostitution.

According to reports, it is alleged that Kenneth Fuina and Shawana Smith ran a website for high end call girls charging between $600 to $2000 for one or more hours of "GFE" or a full service sexual encounter otherwise known as "Girl Friend Experience." The girls were recruited and their services were offered through a website, www.discreetcompanions.moonfruit.com. Once a client contacted Fuina or Smith, it is alleged that the girls were sent out to hotels in Westchester cities such as White Plains, Rye, Rye Brook and Tarrytown.

As a former Manhattan prosecutor who worked on investigations including those relating to Prostitution and Promoting Prostitution, I can say without hesitation that law enforcement takes these crimes very seriously especially if the alleged operation is making significant profits. In fact, individuals charged in these rings often face additional charges that are far more serious than the offenses relating to Prostitution or Escort Services. These crimes can include Money Laundering, Enterprise Corruption and Falsifying Business Records depending on the scope of the criminal activity.

To educate yourself on the law and to prevent yourself from following the same road as these defendants, contact the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC and read our Escort Crime Blog. There is no substitute for knowing your rights and knowing the law to avoid finding yourself in the headlines.

Crotty Saland PC can be followed on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

The various sections of the criminal code addressing Promoting Prostitution, pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 230.20, 230.25, 230.30 and 230.32, set forth some of the most serious crimes relating to Prostitution (Penal Law 230.00) in New York State. As a former Manhattan prosecutor and criminal defense attorney who has prosecuted offenders and represented those accused of Prostitution related offenses, I have seen these statutes in action. While the reasons why and the logic behind the severity in which these crimes are pursued by law enforcement is a discussion for another day, it should be overwhelmingly clear to anyone who may be involved in these crimes - the NYPD and the District Attorney's Offices throughout New York City take these offenses very seriously.

Dealing specifically with the crime of Promoting Prostitution, this blog entry will address each degree of this offense and the potential punishment associated with the crimes. Before doing so, however, you need to have a basic understanding of some terms as follows:

1. A person "advances prostitution" when, acting other than as a prostitute or as a patron thereof, he knowingly causes or aids a person to commit or engage in prostitution, procures or solicits patrons for prostitution, provides persons or premises for prostitution purposes, operates or assists in the operation of a house of prostitution or a prostitution enterprise, or engages in any other conduct designed to institute, aid or facilitate an act or enterprise of prostitution.

2. A person "profits from prostitution" when, acting other than as a prostitute receiving compensation for personally rendered prostitution services, he accepts or receives money or other property pursuant to an agreement or understanding with any person whereby he participates or is to participate in the proceeds of prostitution activity.

The charges of Promoting Prostitution can be found after the jump...

Continue reading "NYC Criminal Defense of Prostituion Related Crimes: Promoting Prostitution" »

From Andrew Cuomo to Robert Morgenthau, state and local prosecutors continue to vigorously prosecute crimes relating to Prostitution, Permitting Prostitution, and Promoting Prostitution. NY criminal defense attorneys experienced in these crimes, such as the criminal defense lawyers and former prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC, know that these offenses are only the tip of the iceburg. More significant crimes of Enterprise Corruption and Money Laundering lurk behind every corner where crews and organizations run these large scale escort enterprises. Case in point...the unsealed indictment in Queens County against seven alleged co-conspirators who ran "Room Service Entertainment."

The 47 Count indictment unsealed today against Scott "Sal'' Rosenberg, 45; Patricia "Nikki'' Krupa, 32; Josef Davenport, 31; Joanna "Anna'' Mercado, 24; Sylvia "Jamie'' Soto, 29; Lina "Tina'' Vazquez; and Barbara "Lisa'' Morris, 48, accuses each of the individuals with Enterprise Corruption and related crimes. Enterprise Corruption requires that an organization have an "ascertainable structure" and is punishable by up to 25 years in state prison. Both Rosenberg and Davenport are alleged to be the mind and money behind the operation and ran the crew.

The Attorney General's Office had been investigating this ring that allegedly advertised with the Village Voice as well as CraigsList from June 2007 through December 2008. According to the Attorney General's website, the individuals in this team had distinct roles from bookers to prostitutes to the financial men behind the organization. Terms such as "skiing" were allegedly used to discuss sexual relations or "GFE" while "rock climbing" was used to arrange for parties with drugs. The ring allegedly operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in NYC and the surrounding suburbs. Craigslist has been under fire lately for permitting such organizations to flourish on the web.

Follow Crotty Saland PC on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

Prosecutors, police and criminal defense attorneys in NY have known for a long time that prostitution, unlicensed massage, and other crimes relating to escort services have flourished on Craigslist. Due to pressure by numerous states and law enforcement agencies, Craigslist will no longer be permitting prostitution and escort services to be blatantly advertised on their website without scrutiny.

According to media reports, Craigslist executives informed Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal that the "erotic services" section would be removed in approximately one week and it would be replaced with an "adult services" section. Moreover, each advertisement will be reviewed by Craiglist to prevent the further proliferation of prostitution and escort related activities and materials.

Attorney General Blumenthal also noted that "[law enforcement] will be monitoring closely to make sure that this measure is more than a name change from 'erotic' to 'adult' and that the manual blocking is tough and effective to scrub prostitution and pornography...Our continuing investigation will assure that these steps are substance, not just spin, and that Craigslist really shuts down its open online red light district."

The change in policy is no surprise to the experienced NY criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC. Having seen crimes actually perpetrated and allegedly committed using the internet as a vehicle, the former prosecutors at Crotty Saland PC saw the writing on the wall for Craigslist and other online classified sites. How the online escort trade, like any illegal activity, will re-invent itself has yet to be seen. Whatever form it takes, law enforcement will continue to pursue those believed to be responsible.

Follow Crotty Saland PC on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

The New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC take each and every criminal case seriously whether the case involves a misdemeanor charge of Harassment or a felony charge of Grand Larceny. Our results speak for themselves. We recognize that regardless of how "small" the case may appear to be in the scheme of the entire criminal justice system, to the accused and our criminal defense attorneys, each case is priority matter.

Recently, the attorneys at Crotty Saland achieved what may appear to be a small victory, but one that was hard fought over a period of months. Our client, a former employee at a one of the world's largest media companies, was accused of Prostitution as a "high end girl." After drafting a memorandum similar to a Clayton motion bearing out why the District Attorney's Office should offer a disposition different than the standard offer, the prosecutor assigned to the case agreed to offer such a disposition. However, although our client accepted the offer, upon going to court to accept the plea someone other than the assigned prosecutor changed the offer. A supervisor refused to make the original offer despite the previous agreement. Therefore, our client was unable to obtain the agreed upon disposition and the case was adjourned.

Further attempts were made to obtain the previously agreed upon disposition, but again, the supervisor refused to honor the agreement. On the following court date a different, but unacceptable offer was made. Again it was rejected. Because no legal notices were given that would require motions to challenge statements or identification and there were no issues regarding property recovered from the defendant, motion practice was waived and the matter was adjourned for trial.

Upon returning to court 63 days later we made an application that the case should be dismissed. Pursuant to CPL 30.30, the People must be ready for trial within 60 days from the beginning of the case where the charge is a "B" misdemeanor. The prosecution had not indicated at any point that they were ready for trial. The People refused to concede and the case was adjourned for a decision on the matter after after parties filed legal motions.

Without going into all the details of the motion to dismiss, one of the issues was whether the prosecution is given a "reasonable" amount of time to prepare for trial after an adjournment for the purpose of starting a trial. This particular judge had previously ruled in a published decision in the the New York Law Journal on a matter with similar facts. In that decision the court relied on, among other things, an earlier decision where it was held that the prosecution should be granted a "reasonable" amount of time to prepare for trial and denied that criminal defense attorney's motion to dismiss.

Despite the court's previous decision, we argued that there was a critical distinction between the cases. That is, in our client's matter motions were waived and a trial was requested. At no time did we ask to make motions to challenge legal issues because none existed at that time. The cases cited by the court in its earlier decision and those beneficial to the prosecution dealt with facts where motion practice was requested, but on the date the motions were due the criminal defense attorney waived the motions and asked for trial. Therefore, arguably, in the latter scenario, the People should be permitted a "reasonable" period of time to prepare for trial. In our client's case there was never a request to file motions. As a practical matter we argued that granting a "reasonable" period of time to prepare for trial where there were no motions or legal issues pending would be tantamount to ruling that in every case the prosecution would always get a "bonus" period of time to prosecute the accused. Armed with numerous court decisions and applicable statutes, the court granted our motion over the prosecutor's protest.

The fact that this case involved the charge of Prostitution is irrelevant. The same statutes and court decisions apply to criminal cases throughout New York. What is important is that we were able to identify the distinctions in the law (and a distinction from this particular judges published decision relating to the same crime and same issue), find applicable cases and apply them to our client's legal matter to get it dismissed. Without a doubt, each case handled by Crotty Saland PC requires and is deserving of our experience and relentless efforts - "big" or "small." Our results would not be the same without this effort.

As NY criminal defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors, my partner and I at Crotty Saland PC have seen a whole lot of "interesting things." Usually, with a little research and effort, we can find the answer to the vast majority of issues and questions we are confronted with. However, the analysis of Natalie Dylan's auctioning of her virginity is definitely the first time (and I guess last and only for her) I have ever come across something like this. So, the question that stands out is whether this is Prostitution and Escorting in "sheep's clothing" or a legal and fine "transaction?"

As I have explained before, Prostitution occurs if you engage or agree or offer to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee. What complicates this matter is that obviously Ms. Dylan is not in NY so the laws of her state are different. But, what about the person who makes an offer or has an acceptable bid (I'm guessing it will take at least $3.5 million dollars, a toyota prius, a bag of Snyder's Pretzels and a romantic dinner date with Larry Flynt)? Is that person guilty of Patronizing a Prostitute? One is guilty in NY of Patronizing a Prostitute when, among other things, he solicits, offers, or agrees to have sexual conduct with another person in exchange for a fee.

While there may be interesting ways to defend each person's actions, on its face it appears that if these two folks were in NY they would be in real trouble. That being said, she is in San Diego and consummating the deal in a Nevada county where this is legal.

Because this issue has never come up before and the courts have not ruled on this (at least I am not aware of it) it is difficult to give a definitive answer. The strongest guidance is to look at sections of the law that are applicable to this question and answer assuming the bidder or the "winner" was a New Yorker. In this case, that would be CPL 20.30. CPL 20.30 states as follows:

Continue reading "An Online Virginity Auction or Plain Old Prostitution: A NY Criminal Defense Attorney's Analysis of Natalie Dylan's Offer" »

The experienced NY criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC can tell you that it is not merely the "John" and the escort or prostitute that may be liable for prostitution or a prostitution related crime. In fact, if you allow your premises to be used for escorts who provide "GFE" services and prostitution, you may be guilty of Permitting Prostitution, pursuant to NY Penal Law 230.40, even if you were never directly involved in the offense.

A person is guilty of Permitting Prostitution when that person, having possession or control of a premises which he or she knows is being used for prostitution purposes, fails to make reasonable efforts to halt or abate such use.

Although the elements of the crime seem fairly clear, the following bullets are decisions by courts over the years that help shed light on how the courts interpret this crime:

(1) A homeowner allowed an unknown woman into his home with an unidentified man. Without asking any questions of the pair, the defendant allowed them into his home. Two weeks later the defendant allowed another couple unknown to him to enter and stay in his home. Court found sufficient evidence establishing that the defendant failed to act to prevent prostitution and related activity. People v. Taliaferrow, 121 Misc.2d 307, 467 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct. 1983)

(2) Where a defendant aided and abetted prostitution on his bar premises "the complaint [was] not invalidated because it did not state that the defendant failed to make reasonable efforts to halt or abate prostitution. That neglect is fairly implied from the claim that he facilitated prostitution on his premises." People v. Gilmore, 120 Misc.2d 741 (N.Y.City Ct. 1983)

(3) Absent proof that the defendant, a desk clerk at a hotel, was aware that the premises where he worked was to be used for prostitution, the crime of Permitting Prostitution is not established because the clerk knowingly rented a room to a man and a woman that he knew were not married. People v. Harris, 74 Misc.2d 707 (N.Y.Sup. 1973)

(4) "Where both supposed prostitute and customer were undercover police officers, there could be no actual agreement, offer, solicitation, or other understanding between two to engage in sexual conduct for a fee, and, thus, there was no prostitution nor use of hotel premises for prostitution purposes." People v. Behncke, 141 Misc.2d 630 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct.1988)

Whether you are charged with Permitting Prostitution or any other crime, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC, are ready work with you to get you where you want, and need, to be.

Follow Crotty Saland PC on Twitter at DefenseLawyerNY.

Individuals charged in New York with the crime of Prostitution, Penal Law Section 230.00, have to offer to or actually engage in "sexual conduct" as defined by both statutes and case law. In the Kings County (Brooklyn) Criminal Court case of People. v. Georgia A., 163 Misc.2d 634 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct.,1994), a NY criminal defense attorney successfully argued before a criminal court judge that his client should be acquitted after the prosecution failed to establish any "sexual conduct" existed in an "S & M" and dominatrix case.

In this particular matter the defendant met with an undercover police officer after they arranged for the appointment over the phone (this pre-dated Craig's List and Backpage). The agreement between the two was for an "S & M" experience. Upon meeting, the undercover asked what he would get in exchange for $100 and the defendant informed him that he would receive "S &M" for that fee. Although the money was not exchanged at that time, the defendant changed her outfit. During this time, the undercover observed various videos and other items including whips and toys.

At some point the undercover notified the "field team" (a term often used to refer to other officers involved in the investigation and arrest). These officers entered the apartment and arrested the defendant.

At trial, the defendant testified that "as the dominatrix, she makes an assessment as to what a customer wants and/or needs and then performs that desire. [The defendant] stressed the fact that there is no sex or sexual conduct like sexual intercourse or physical contact with the person's genitals. [The defendant] further testified that as a dominatrix, she wore a specific costume-black gloves, leather corset, panties and high heels." Moreover, [the defendant] stated that there was no intercourse of any kind, but that a client might be spanked or paddled.

In finding that there was no "sexual conduct" the court found that "sado-masochistic acts described by [the defendant]: foot licking, spanking, domination and submission do not appear to fit within the category of sexual conduct referred to in the statute."

While each case must be analyzed individually, the case of Georgia A. is a significant one in that it gives insight as to what may not be construed as "sexual conduct." While this decision is from a trial court (not an appellate court), it is an important one and sets forth the position that sado-masochistic acts of footlicking, spanking, domination and submission are not "sexual conduct" within the meaning of the prostitution statute.

Regardless of the facts underlying your case, if you are charged with a crime relating to Prostitution, Solicitation, Unlicensed Massage or Promoting Prostitution, you should educate yourself on the law at EscortDefense.Com and retain the criminal defense firm of Crotty Saland PC, as the experienced criminal counsel you need to fight for your rights and integrity.

In the realm of Prostitution, Promoting Prostitution, Solicitation and crimes relating to Escort Services,New York criminal defense attorneys often have to think out of the box to fight every battle for their client. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not. One way to challenge a case is through a "Clayton" motion where a criminal defense attorney seeks the dismissal of a criminal case in the interest of justice. This motion can be made whether the case is for Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in Manhattan, Petit Larceny in Brooklyn, or Forgery in the Bronx. In fact, I have had tremendous success with similar applications on very serious matters where clients had faced felonies but had the charges reduced to the point where they had the opportunity to escape any criminal record at all.

In the past year, one criminal attorney, who should be applauded for his efforts, attempted to have his client's Prostitution charge dismissed in the interest of justice. Unfortunately for his client, he was unsuccessful. In People v. Saori Sato, 2007CN004865, New York County (Manhattan) Criminal Court Judge Richard Weinberg denied the criminal defense attorney's motion. The attorney argued that "prostitution is a victimless crime in which two equal contracting parties negotiate for the performance of an act proscribed in private by consenting adults."

Judge Weinberg responded to that argument by stating that "if [the argument] were adopted, [it] would compel the Court to dismiss every prostitution case on its docket and would require the Court to improperly substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature.Furthermore, to argue that Prostitution is a victimless crime overlooks the impact that this activity may have on the health of the participants as well as innocent third parties and on the viability of neighborhoods where this activity occurs. To characterize the alleged transaction as a simple contract negotiation between equals ignores the reality that the circumstances of the parties are often quite disparate." In other words...thanks for trying, but you are denied!

Any criminal defense attorney should be commended for zealously advocating for their client even if it is a difficult position. After all, you are innocent until proven guilty. That being said, an experienced criminal defense attorney knows what to argue, how to argue, and when to argue. In other words, there is a time and place to make the strongest challenges that have the greatest likelihood of success. That knowledge comes from experience. As a former prosecutor who served for seven years in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, I have the experience and knowledge to give you the best opportunity to get you where you want and need to be.

Recently, on September 8, 2008, I commented on People v. Magali Rodriguez. In that matter, a New York criminal defense attorney challenged the legal sufficiency of a complaint charging the defendant with Prostitution. Specifically, the challenge was based on the fact that a third party negotiated the financial transaction. In finding the complaint (it's actually called an "information") legally sufficient, the Court stated that the defendant herself need not be the one to offer the sexual conduct and discuss the financial transaction. What must be reviewed is the "totality of the circumstances."

On a similar note, another recent decision from New York (Manhattan) Criminal Court in January 2008, People v. Heesuk Choi, 2007NY085556, reveals that courts may be getting stricter in their enforcement of Prostitution and related crimes. In that matter, an undercover police officer was in a "brothel" or "house of prostitution" where five women (one was the defendant), who did not speak, were paraded out to him. The undercover agreed on a price with a madam and was asked to pick a girl.

The criminal defense attorney argued that the case should be dismissed for facial insufficiency because the mere presence of the defendant did not establish her involvement in the sexual transaction. In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Weinberg asserted that "it is not necessary to establish that defendant individually negotiated with the undercover in order to establish a prima facie case of prostitution. The Court is not required to turn a blind eye to compelling circumstantial evidence while engaged in a facial sufficiency review."

In other words, not only may Prostitution be legally established by only alleging that someone else negotiated the transaction, but alleging presence alone, under certain circumstances, may be legally sufficient.

While these decisions may be viewed as a setback, it is important to note that a denial of dismissal does not mean a determination of guilt. The next stage in the process of maintaining your innocence would be either a hearing and/or trial. It is absolutely imperative that if your case proceeds to trial you retain a criminal attorney with real trial experience who can fight to maintain your innocence and protect your rights. As I have said many times...don't compound a bad situation by hiring an attorney who has minimal working knowledge of the criminal justice system, trial work, and the crimes relating to Prostitution.

***Protect yourself by knowing your rights and the law****

Recently, in People v. Magali Rodriguez, a NY criminal defense lawyer argued in Brooklyn (Kings County) that the complaint alleging Prostitution against his client was facially insufficient and should be dismissed. Specifically, the NY criminal defense attorney argued that the complaint alleged that a third party, and not his client, received payment for the agreed upon sexual services between his client, the alleged prostitute, and the undercover police officer. Therefore, the defendant did not make the actual agreement.

Brooklyn Criminal Court Judge Michael Gerstein disagreed with the criminal defense attorney and denied the suppression. Citing People v. Choi, 18 Misc.3d 1122, (Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2008), Judge Gerstein stated "that the mere fact that an agreement to engage in sex for money was secured through a procurer does not render [a] Complaint [alleging Prostitution] insufficient."

A person is guilty of Prostitution under NY Penal Law ､230.00 when he or she "agrees or offers to engage in sexual conduct with another person in return for a fee." The Court further explained that in determining facial sufficiency of a Complaint, the Court need not disregard common sense. In fact, NY Penal Law ､230.00 "does not require allegations that the Defendant received money directly, but merely that he or she agreed to provide sex in exchange for money. The mere presence of a managing structure does not immunize a Defendant who agrees to provide sex in exchange for money...Thus, Prostitution is established where, as here, an Undercover Officer allegedly negotiates a sum, pays up-front, chooses one of several available women and is then turned over to the woman of his choice to receive the wares he purchased."

As I have stated in previous entries, an experienced criminal defense attorney should be retained to fight for your rights and ascertain whether there are any holes or weaknesses in case against you. While no attorney can guarantee the outcome of his or her motion, an experienced criminal attorney can identify the potential issues, formulate a plan of attack, and implement that plan to get you where you want and need to be.