New York Criminal Lawyer Blog

April 16, 2010

NY Penal Law Sections 250.45 & 250.50: Your Criminal Defense & Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree & First Degrees

That secret video recorder you installed capturing someone undressing in a hotel bedroom, the changing room or in your tenant’s apartment may land you in serious trouble. While you may think it is funny to show your friends images of a person you filmed while you were intimate without that person knowing, it will be far from humorous when you find yourself charged with either Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law section 250.45 or Unlawful Surveillance in the First Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 250.50.

Although a serious offense, there may be numerous defenses to the crimes of Unlawful Surveillance pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 250.45 and 250.50. For example, did the subject of the surveillance or video consent to the recordings and is there any corroboration of that? Obviously, making such an argument where the installation is in a fitting room, bathroom or other “personal space” may be difficult. That being said, was the search of the location or computer used in the alleged crime conducted with probable cause and with a search warrant? Do you have standing to challenge that search? Whatever the facts, discuss the them with your New York criminal defense attorney to ascertain and implement the best defense you deem appropriate. Having briefly glossed over the severity of the crime and potential defenses, the follow are the definitions involving Unlawful Surveillance in New York:

April 13, 2010

Unlicensed Practice of a Profession: Spa Owner Allegedly Performs Liposuction & Other Procedures Leaving Patient Near Death

by Jeremy Saland

According to Queens District Attorney Richard Brown, a spa owner, Barbara Nieto, is alleged to have performed liposuction suction to a patient’s stomach and injected the fat into her buttocks for a $500 fee. Unfortunately, not only is Ms. Nieto allegedly not licensed to practice medicine or similar procedures at Perfect Image Stethics (located at 40-63 Junction Boulevard) or Bell Stetika Esthetics and Spa (located at 93-28A Corona Avenue), but it is further alleged that the patient nearly died due to her injuries.

Although often associated with individuals giving unlicensed massages or wrongfully practicing as an attorney, the practice of any profession without a license where one is required is not permissible under New York State Law. Ms. Nieto stands charged with Unauthorized Practice of a Profession, pursuant to Education Law section 6512, and faces up to four years in prison on that “E” felony. Additionally, Ms. Nieto is charged with multiple “D” felonies where she faces up to seven years in state prison if convicted. Those offenses are Reckless Endangerment in the First Degree, pursuant to New york Penal Law 120.25, and two separate counts of a Assault in the Second Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law 120.05.

April 12, 2010

New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) Section 511: Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Vehcile – Definition & Your NY Criminal Defense

by Jeremy Saland

A common offense handled by New York criminal defense attorneys, Vehicle and Traffic Law section 511 (“VTL 511”) is a crime in New York where a person operates a motor vehicle while his or her right to do so is suspended. Although there are varying degrees from misdemeanor to felony, one of the most common of these crimes is Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law section 511(1)(a) (“VTL 511(1)(a)). New York Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree is defined in general terms as follows:

One is guilty of the of Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle in the Third Degree when one is operating a motor vehicle (car, truck, etc.) on a public highway (just about any public road, street, etc.). At the same time, one must know or have a reason to know one’s privilege, right or license in New York is suspended, revoked or otherwise withdrawn.

April 9, 2010

White Plains Mayor Adam Bradley Arrested Again for Domestic Violence: Allegedly Tells Wife to Hang Herself

by Jeremy Saland

The political nightmare and familial anguish that has enveloped White Plains (Westchester County) Mayor Adam Bradley was magnified exponentially yesterday when he was arrested and arraigned on new charges of alleged domestic violence against his wife Fumiko. According to the court complaint against Mayor Bradley, the former Assemblyman is charged with three offenses including two misdemeanors of Contempt in the Second Degree and Tampering with a Witness in the Fourth Degree.

Although his wife had previously indicated that she would not cooperate with the police or Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, it appears that the alleged abuse pushed Ms. Bradley too far. According to the complaint, Mayor Bradley accused his wife on multiple occasions as either being crazy, a lier or the abuser in the relationship. Moreover, it is alleged that Mayor Bradley went as far as telling his wife she should kill herself by hanging.

April 7, 2010

New York Tax Cheats Watch Out! New York Prosecutors Cracking Down on Criminal Tax Fraud

by Jeremy Saland

Yet again, Manhattan prosecutors have come after another individual and his company for allegedly defrauding New York out of tax revenues. According to a press release by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, Abdur Rashid Salaam and his companies, Safe & Secured Protective Services, Inc. and T.S.I. Special Services, Inc., have been indicted by a New York County Grand Jury for the crimes of Grand Larceny and Criminal Tax Fraud punishable by up to 25 years in state prison. It is alleged that Since 2003, “Salaam orchestrated the unlawful withholding of more than $1.2 million in collected sales taxes from New York State. More than $800,000 was stolen in the form of sales tax collected and kept by T.S.I. Special Services, Inc., and more than an additional $450,000 was stolen in the form of sales taxes collected and kept by Safe & Secured Protective Services, Inc.”

This arrest and indictment is one of many recently prosecuted by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office including four separate restaurant owners who have either been indicted or have pleaded guilty in connection to alleged Grand Larceny and Criminal Tax Fraud in excess of $1.1 million dollars. Although some of these individuals and their companies are alleged by prosecutors to have stolen hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, prosecutors are not merely going after fraud in the “six figure” amount or greater. If anything, these investigations are a sign of things to come and a furtherance of former District Attorney Robert Morgenthau’s dedication to prosecuting crimes in the streets as well as New York white collar crime in the “suites.”

April 6, 2010

New York Penal Law 230.04: Patronizing a Prostitute and Your NY Criminal Defense

by Jeremy Saland

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.

April 2, 2010

Crimes for “Petty Theft” & Shoplifting in New York: Petit Larceny (NY Penal Law 155.25) & Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree (NY Penal Law 165.40)

by Jeremy Saland

You were either arrested and put through the arrest process or you were issued a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) for shoplifting (New York Penal Law 155.25 or 165.40) after store security stopped you with a pair of jeans hidden away in your bag at Macey’s or some makeup buried in your pocket at Bloomingdales. Although you have never been in trouble before, you now face the grim reality that you need to consult with a criminal defense attorney regarding your shoplifting arrest or Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) and the ramifications of the associated misdemeanor crimes.

Regardless of what you are alleged to have shoplifted (clothing, electronics, makeup, jewelry, etc.), the crimes you now face are misdemeanor offenses in New York as long as the value of the property stolen does not exceed $1000 (with some exceptions). That is right….whether the property was a $750 watch or a $5 pair of socks, the misdemeanor crimes of Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the 5th Degree (NY PL 165.40) are the two charges you will be facing and addressing with your New York criminal defense lawyer. Make no mistake. The “shoplifting misdemeanors” are punishable by up to one year in jail and are just as serious under the law as misdemeanor Assault, Criminal Mischief and even Forgery.

March 29, 2010

Gunshot Wounds & Stabbings: Who is Required to Report These Injuries (New York Penal Law 265.25)

by Jeremy Saland

New York State requires under certain circumstances that specific injuries or wounds must be reported to the police. In fact, pursuant to New York Penal Law section 265.25, failure to report certain wounds by individuals such as an attending or treating physician (mandated reporters) is an “A” misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail.

According to New York Penal Law 265.25

March 29, 2010

NY Criminal Defense & New York Penal Law 265.03 – Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree

by Jeremy Saland

Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree, pursuant to New York Penal Law 265.03, is unquestionably one of the most serious criminal charges that an individual can face in NYC or anywhere in New York. That is right. Even if you have a permit in Colorado, Georgia or Alabama, if you possess than firearm in a hotel room in Manhattan or at JFK or LaGuardia Airports, the crime has still been committed if you do not have a permit in New York. The New York criminal defense attorneys at Saland Law PC, have not only successfully represented clients charged with possessing loaded guns, but prosecuted individuals charged with this crime as Assistant District Attorneys under Robert Morgenthau. The following is a “primer” for those not familiar with this offense and the strict liability it seems to impose on the accused.

A person is guilty of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (NY PL 265.03) when:

March 25, 2010

Can You Be Convicted of Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in New York with Respect to the Same Instrument: New York Penal Law 170.35 & Your Forgery Defense

by Jeremy Saland

New York Forgery offenses, pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 170.05, 170.10 and 170.15, are not only distinct crimes within the realm of Forgery, but they are also separate from the crime of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 170.20, 170.25 and 170.30. In light of the fact that they are unique crimes, can prosecutors charge you with forging as well as possessing the instrument you are alleged to have forged? If you can be charged with forging and possessing the same forged instrument (such as a passport or counterfeit dollar), can you also be convicted of Forgery and Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument as well?

New York Penal Law 170.35 gives the simple answer to this question. According to New York Penal Law 170.35, “[i]n any prosecution for [C]riminal [P]ossession of a [F]orged [I]nstrument, it is no defense that the defendant forged or participated in the forgery of the instrument in issue; provided that a person may not be convicted of both [C]riminal [P]ossession of a [F]orged [I]nstrument and [F]orgery with respect to the same instrument.”