Info
Featured In
Media Badges

by

As I have addressed in the past, theft of a credit card or debit card in New York City, and in any of the surrounding boroughs or counties, will result in (at least) the felony charge of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, NY Penal Law 155.30(4). Certainly anyone facing such a charge should consult with New York criminal defense attorney experienced in credit card crimes as the felony they would face is punishable by up to four years in prison. But what about credit card fraud (whatever that actually means!)? Will a perpetrator of credit card fraud be charged with a felony? Are there other charges that may accompany a credit card fraud charge? What evidence does the State of New York have to bring to prove credit card fraud? Let’s briefly address these questions here. After all, it is important to understand the seriousness of the charges a New Yorker can face if they perpetrate one of these crimes.

In New York, one of the crimes credit card fraud will result in is a charge of New York Penal Law 170.10(1) Forgery in the Second Degree. A “D” felony punishable by up to seven years in state prison, Forgery in the Second Degree is a relatively common crime. You are guilty of Forgery in the Second Degree if you fraudulently sign the name of the actual holder of the credit card or debit card on a written instrument (i.e. the transaction receipt). Similar to theft of a credit or debit card, forgery in the second degree does not turn on the value of goods stolen (i.e. the items you purchased by signing the false name on the receipt). If you forged a signature without authority and with the intent to defraud the credit card company and/or the store (or the cardholder for that matter), then you are guilty of Forgery in the Second Degree. It is fairly scary that this one bogus signature has enormous criminal ramifications.

Continue reading

by

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown keeps motoring on obtaining one Enterprise Corruption indictment after another. Whether the top prosecutor in Queens is chasing down identity thieves, gamblers or other alleged fraudsters, when he finally catches them he brings out the “big guns” found in the New York Penal Law. According to a press release from earlier today, DA Brown has done it again. Eighteen individuals, arrested for and charged with Enterprise Corruption, Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Falsifying Business Records, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and Conspiracy, are all alleged to be part of an auto loan fraud scheme. It appears that obtaining indictments against these individuals was not enough to satisfy DA Brown’s voracious appetite for justice as he also obtained indictments for three separate corporations.

According to prosecutors, eighteen individuals and three corporations have been indicted for their alleged roles in two massive automobile loan fraud schemes that resulted in nearly two million dollars in losses to 18 financial institutions on 47 loans. A fairly basic, yet lucrative, scheme it is alleged that the defendants were involved in obtaining loans to purchase high end automobiles – BMWs, Mercedes, Porsches – with the assistance of “straw borrowers.” These borrowers had good credit that enable them to allegedly purchase vehicles that were later resold or rented on the black market and used in criminal activities.

Continue reading

by

The New York criminal lawyers at Saland Law 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 Saland Law PC.

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

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.

Continue reading

by

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)

Continue reading

by

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:

Continue reading

by

As discussed previously on this blog site, Robbery, under NY Penal Law section 160.00, is defined as “forcible stealing.” Thus it differs from other theft crimes for which force is not an element. In this legal context, “forcible” means threatening or using physical force. The force element can be satisfied in any number of ways: from a simple threatening fist pump and pushing a victim repeatedly into a corner to waiving a box cutter and brandishing a weapon in the victim’s face. Of course, if an alleged thief brandishes a “firearm” [i.e. a gun; for specific legal definition see: NY Penal Law 265.00(2)] at a Robbery in the New York City area or Westchester County, the severity of the crime is heightened. Any experienced New York criminal attorney knows that prosecutors in New York are tougher on defendants who perpetrate felonies while carrying firearms, guns, pistols or any type of weapon. If you brandish a weapon in New York during a forcible theft (i.e, a “Robbery”) you will, at the very least, face charges of Robbery in the Second Degree (NY Penal Law Section 160.10) – a class C felony with a possible sentence ranging from three and one half to fifteen years in prison – and you may face charges of Robbery in the First Degree (NY Penal Law Section 160.15) – a class B felony punishable from five to twenty five years in state prison. These terms of imprisonment are for first time offenders.

A critical component with regards to carrying a firearm during a Robbery, is whether that gun is loaded. Under NY Penal Law 160.10(2)(b) if a robber “displays what appears to be…a firearm” then that alleged robber will be convicted of Robbery in the Second degree. On the other hand, a defendant can only be convicted of Robbery in the First Degree if that firearm was loaded and “a shot readily capable of producing death or other serious physical injury could be discharged” (NY Penal Law 160.15(4)). Therefore, if what appears to be a gun is brandished during a Robbery and the defendant is charged with Robbery in the First Degree, a New York criminal lawyer will always raise the affirmative defense that the gun was not loaded (or not a gun at all) and thus not a deadly weapon. If it can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was indeed a loaded and deadly weapon, then the defendant may only be convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree. As noted above, this can mean significantly less time on a prison sentence especially when multiple counts/charges are levied against the defendant (as will almost always be the case).

Continue reading

Contact Information
274 Madison Ave #1401
New York, NY 10016
Office: 212.312.7129Fax: 212.918.9375
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING - Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Saland Law PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design