New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

November 4, 2010

DA: Manhattan Pharmacist Arrested & Indicted After Defrauding Medicaid out of Nearly $2 Million

According to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr., this Medicaid bust may be just the tip of the prescription pad iceberg and that more arrests in other investigations are coming. Prosecutors allege that Patrick Alcindor, a pharmacist with Procare Pharmacy, located at 1728 Amsterdam Ave. in Washington Heights, over-billed Medicaid for more than $1.8 million between April 2009 and March 2010. In fact, prosecutors claim that during this sting operation, an undercover police officer gave Mr. Alcindor written prescriptions to be filled, but the undercover police officer got a fist full of dollars in instead. These prescriptions included medications such as Reyataz, Truvada, Prezista, Procrit, and Zyprexa. Instead of dispensing this medication, Mr. Alcindor allegedly dispensed cash to the undercover police officer as part of Mr. Alcindor’s alleged scheme to swindle Medicaid. Mr. Alcindor would then bill Medicaid as if he really filled the prescription for the drugs. It is claimed by law enforcement that another pharmacy worker was in on the scheme.

Mr. Alcindor is currently charged with numerous counts of Grand Larceny including Grand Larceny in the First Degree. Additionally, the indictment charged Mr. Alcindor with Criminal Diversion of Prescription Medication in the Fourth Degree. For whatever reason, prosecutors chose not to charge Mr. Alcindor with the crimes of Forgery, Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument and Falsifying Business Records for his alleged conduct in completing and filing false documentation to obtain the money from Medicaid.

November 3, 2010

Top New York Criminal Defense Results: Client Arrested with Possessing Gun, Drugs and Driving with a Suspended License Avoids Criminal Record

by Jeremy Saland

Although it sounded horrific on paper, the New York criminal defense lawyers at Saland Law PC arguably obtained the best result for a client charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon (a .380 handgun), Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance (cocaine), Unlawful Possession of Marijuana and Driving with a Suspended License. Despite the allegations, our client pleaded to the violation of Disorderly Conduct. This disposition avoided not only a criminal record, but jail or probation.

Our client, a resident of North Carolina, came to New York to visit family. Unaware of the laws here, the client brought a legally registered firearm from his home state into New York. When he was pulled over for an alleged traffic infraction, the police also found some marijuana and cocaine on his person in an amount consistent with personal use. Compounding matters, our client was driving on a suspended license for old tickets he was unaware about.

October 30, 2010

Burglary and Robbery Laws in New York: Articles 140 & 160 of the New York Penal Law

by Jeremy Saland

Saland Law PC, a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, is pleased to announce the completion of the Burglary (NY Penal Law 140.20, 140.25 and 140.30) and Robbery (New York Penal Law 160.05, 160.10 and 160.15) information pages. Although no substitute for an in depth legal and factual discussion with your New York criminal defense attorney, the Burglary and Robbery pages contain significant information to begin your education into these crimes.

Burglary and Robbery are the two crimes that people often confuse. Generally, Burglary involves the unlawful entering of a building with the intent to commit a crime. Usually, this crime is a theft. Robbery, on the other hand, is a forcible stealing from an individual. Each of these crimes have numerous “escalation factors” including whether there was more than one person involved in the crime, whether there were any weapons involved and whether a non participant was injured.

October 27, 2010

Woman Allegedly Fakes Jury Service to Get Out of Work for Eight Days: Now Facing Seven Years in Prison

by Jeremy Saland

In the decade or more that I have been involved in the criminal justice system as a criminal defense attorney and Manhattan prosecutor, I have heard some real doozies from people attempting to get out of jury duty. This passion to get out of jury duty is rarely, if ever, matched by those willing to put their own lives to the side to serve as jurors. Yet, a woman in Staten Island clearly has bucked that trend. In fact, she was arrested earlier today and is awaiting arraignment for desperately trying to get on jury duty (well, sort of…).

According to the New York Post, police arrested Rebecca Thybulle after she missed eight days of work at her government job. Wanting to take some time off, it is alleged that she created a jury summons as well as proof of jury service for her employer in order to answer for her eight day absence. It is alleged that Ms.Thybulle went as far as to tell her boss that she was on a vehicular homicide case. As happy as her fellow New Yorkers may have been to hear she enthusiastically embraced her civic duty, it is alleged that her boss found evidence of the forged summons and proof of jury service on Ms. Thybulle’s desk. With a slight twist of irony, Ms. Thybulle may be sitting for jurors, but not for jury duty. Instead, she may be sitting to pick jurors to hear her case and the two counts of Forgery in the Second Degree she now faces. If convicted, Ms. Thybulle is looking at up to seven years in prison on each count (it would likely run concurrent).

October 24, 2010

Arrested For Shoplifting (New York Penal Law 155.25 or 165.40): Potential Offers or Deals in Manhattan

by Jeremy Saland

As a New York shoplifting criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor, I have encountered almost every form of shoplifting (New York Penal Law 155.25 – Petit Larceny and New York Penal Law 165.40 – Criminal Possession of Stolen Property). Whether the accused is arrested and issued a shoplifting Desk Appearance Ticket or put through the system, the way it unfolds is often the same. While I have blogged extensively on New York shoplifting laws, this entry will address potential offers made by prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office for shoplifting crimes. The overriding factor, beyond whether one has a record, is the value of the property stolen. The following is a list of common offers for first time offenders. However, it is critical to note that offer guiltiness change.

Shoplifting for Approximately $100 or Less

October 20, 2010

Client Avoids Felony Conviction & Jail After Arrested for Falsifying Business Records & Grand Larceny Embezzlement in Excess of $30K

by Jeremy Saland

The New York white collar criminal defense attorneys at Saland Law PC are pleased to announce that another client avoided both a felony conviction and incarceration after being charged with numerous felonies involving theft and fraud. Prosecutors had alleged that our client embezzled in excess of $32,000 from our client’s employer. If convicted of the crimes of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35) and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree (NY PL 175.10), our client faced up to seven and four years in state prison respectively.

In this particular case, prosecutors alleged that our client siphoned cash payments directed to the employer and that our client entered false data or caused inaccurate data to be entered into the computer system of the business to cover up the alleged fraud. After negotiations and the presentation of other factors, prosecutors permitted our client to plea to a lesser misdemeanor of Petit Larceny (the “shoplifting statute”) and receive a conditional discharge where the judge instructed our client to stay out of trouble for one year. Although our client admitted to some wrongdoing, he was not crippled by his past and he will avoid the collateral consequences and stigma of a felony conviction as well as incarceration.

October 16, 2010

Circumventing the Ignition Interlock Devices: VTL 1198 Crimes & New York DWI Defense

by Jeremy Saland

I previously addressed New York’s Leandra’s Law as it relates to new offenses and crimes in the realm of Driving While Intoxicated (DWI / DUI) pursuant to New York Vehicle and Traffic Law section 1192. The two major changes to the law are that is now an automatic felony to perpetrate a DWI with a child fifteen years old or younger in the vehicle (VTL 1192.2-a(b) / 1192(2a)(b)) and if one is convicted of DWI one must install an ignition interlock device in one’s vehicle. Both of these laws have been addressed in earlier entries. Information can be found through the respective links.

This entry will address the new statutes and crimes established by the legislature in New York for those accused of disobeying the new ignition interlock device laws. Each of the following DWI crimes relating to the circumvention of an ignition interlock device in New York are “A” misdemeanors.

October 12, 2010

Rockefeller Drug Law Reform Part I: Your Criminal Defense in New York as a First Time Offender

by Jeremy Saland

Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance…Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance…heroin, crack-cocaine and cocaine (note that marijuana is not a Controlled Substance crime). Your NY criminal defense attorney has heard of these crimes before and it is likely you have as well. However, what we have all learned and grown accustomed to over the years may no longer be valid. Why? The old Rockefeller drug laws in NY have drastically changed. We, the NY criminal defense lawyers at Saland Law PC, have reviewed the applicable statutes as they relate to to the possession and sale of drugs and will address some of these changes in our first entry on this subject.

Pursuant to the first change in the Rockefeller drug laws, “B” drug felonies found in Penal Law section 220.39 – Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree and New York Penal Law section 220.16 – Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Third Degree, required a mandatory term of imprisonment for a first time felony offender between one and nine years. The recent change now permits sentences that are a mix of probation and jail or even straight probation. Moreover, Willard, an inpatient drug treatment program and facility, is available for these first time offenders. Another change provided by the amended statutes authorizes courts to placed defendants convicted of the “B” drug crimes into SHOCK incarceration where previously a judge did not have the ability to do so. Previously, the NYS Department of Corrections had the authority to make this determination and could deny SHOCK even if a judge requested it.

October 8, 2010

Grand Larceny In New York – Article 155: Understanding the Law & Implementing Your Criminal Defense

by Jeremy Saland

In New York State, Grand Larceny is one of the most common white collar crimes that prosecutors charge. Although the level of the crime can range from Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (NY PL 155.30(1)) punishable by up to 4 years in prison to Grand Larceny in the First Degree (NY PL 155.42) punishable by up to 25 years prison, the following is a New York Grand Larceny “primer” as the law applies to the value of property allegedly stolen. For further information on different sections of the Grand Larceny statute and how the law may impact your particular defense, follow the links below. Having said that, Grand Larceny in New York is defined as follows:

Grand Larceny in the 4th Degree – New York Penal Law Section 155.30(1)

October 3, 2010

Rights to Your Property Affected Because of a New York Order of Protection: The “Forman Hearing” & Your Criminal Defense

by Jeremy Saland

It is common throughout New York City and the region for judges to grant prosecutors’ requests for orders of protection whereby no contact between a complainant and defendant is permitted. These “full” orders of protection are often requested in other counties, such as in Brooklyn and Westchester, where the parties don’t even know each other and are complete strangers. What is concerning for the accused, however, is where a “full” order of protection is issued that ultimately requires one party to vacate their own home. Unquestionably, these orders of protection are often necessary to protect one individual from another. However, “full” orders of protection are also implemented where there is merely an accusation without full investigation. Prosecutors, taking the side of caution, may ask for these orders of protection, but amend them at a later date. Unfortunately, what happens to the accused if they must leave their home, their property and their possessions behind while they wait for a prosecutor or detective to conduct their investigation? What is this person to do for the weeks or months that he or she may not have access to his or her property?

Fortunately, there is a potential remedy or at least a means to challenge the order of protection in New York. If your “personal or property rights will be directly and specifically affected,” by a “full” order of protection, your attorney can request a “Forman Hearing.” Having said that, merely requesting one does not mean such a hearing will be granted and you will be successful. It is the accused’s burden to establish this direct and specific affect. Once having done so, the court must ascertain and weigh this affect against the danger(s) to the complainant. See People v. Foreman, 145. Misc. 2d 115 (NY Cty. Crim. Ct. 1989).