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
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:
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.”
The felony crimes relating to Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in New York appear relatively straight forward whether the crimes is perpetrated by Embezzlement, Blackmail/Extortion or any other means. In general terms, if you steal property and the value of that property exceeds $1,000, $3,000, $50,000 or $1,000,000, then you may be charged and convicted of Grand Larceny in Fourth Degree (New York Penal Law 155.30(1), Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 155.35), Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 155.40(1)) or Grand Larceny in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 155.42) respectively. In the event you are alleged to have possessed stolen property with the values as mentioned, then the applicable offense are Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fourth Degree (New York Penal Law 165.45(1), Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 165.50, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 165.52, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 165.54) respectively.
Each one of these statutes seems clear enough. For example, what if you steal or embezzle $7,500 in cash and you are caught with that money. Here, the value of the property obviously exceeds $3,000, but is less than $50,000. Prosecutors could therefore charge you with either or both crimes of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (NY PL 155.35) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree (NY PL 165.50). Well, what if the theft or stolen property was a high definition 52 inch LCD television you bought for $6,000 four years ago, but you could get the same model now for $2950? What if the property does not have an easily ascertainable value such antique silverware that has been in the family for generations? Is it enough for the prosecution to merely state the value? If not, what is required to establish this value?
I previously drafted an entry addressing the elements of the crime of Perjury in New York pursuant to NY Penal Law Sections 210.05 (Perjury in the Third Degree), 210.10 (Perjury in the Second Degree) and 210.15 (Perjury in the First Degree). This entry will address the affirmative defense set forth in the New York Penal Law pursuant to New York Penal Law section 210.25. Although just a brief discussion, if you are charged with Perjury in New York, you should discuss this affirmative defense with your NY criminal defense attorney.
210.25 Perjury; defense
Pursuant to Article 177 of the New York Penal Law, Health Care Fraud in New York is one of the more serious offenses handled by New York criminal defense lawyers that almost mimics the Grand Larceny Statute. Depending on the amount of the fraud, like varying degrees of Grand Larceny, the crime can be elevated from a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail to a felony punishable by up to twenty five years in state prison (follow this link for further analysis of NY Health Care Fraud in the First Through Fifth Degrees and your criminal defense). Although this crime is certainly one that can have devastating impacts on one’s liberty and career, there is a an affirmative defense found in the New York Penal Law that may protect certain people.
According to New York Penal Law Section 177.30:
Queens County, the new hotbed of white collar crime and prosecutions, is the home of another alleged fraudulent scheme being prosecuted by the Queens County District Attorney’s Office. According to a Queens County District Attorney’s Office press release, Roger Arias, Martina Duran (a.k.a. Gladys Arroyo), Aldo Bussi, Ramon Gaston, and Percy Randall are alleged to have taken part in a $2 million Mortgage Fraud and Identity Theft scheme.
It is alleged in a 327 count indictment that Arias, the owner of Club Kalua, along with the other individuals used stolen identities to buy and sell three separate properties in Queens County. Not only are these individuals alleged to have used fraudulent identification to perpetrate their crimes while posing as buyers and sellers of real estate, one of the alleged stolen identities belonged to a deceased person.
The Brooklyn, Kings County, District Attorney’s Office has announced that a Grand Jury indicted three individuals for Grand Larceny in the Second Degree for allegedly bilking the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) out of approximately $150,000. According to the press release, Jacqueline Jackson, a NYCTA supervisor, John Headley, an assistant district attorney who served under Charles Hynes in Brooklyn from 1991 to 1995, and Joyce Ilarraza, a former New York City Corrections Officer, are named on two separate indictments.
As a supervisor at NYCTA, Jackson’s responsibilities included overseeing a staff of ten. Her responsibilities included setting up independent medical examinations for individuals who were suing NYCTA. Headley, no longer a prosecutor, had his own firm, Advance IME Co. This company provided the Torts Division of the NYCTA Law Department with independent medical examinations. Additionally, if necessary, Headley’s company also provided medical records and expert witnesses at trial. It is alleged that from from 2007 through 2008, Jackson instructed her staff to direct business to Advance IME Co. and to approve billing and invoices to Headley’s company. As a result, prosecutors contend that $98,000 was stolen from NYCTA. In return for this business, Headley allegedly paid for Jackson’s personal expenses including her electric and gas bills.
Robert Halderman, the man who was accused by prosecutors of extorting and blackmailing “Late Show” host David Letterman, finally gave up on his concocted “screenplay” defense and pleaded to Attempted Grand Larceny by Extortion in Manhattan Supreme Court. In return for his plea, Mr. Halderman will be sentenced to six months in jail (he will serve roughly four months with good time) along with one thousand hours of community service and probation. This type of sentence involving probation and jail is commonly referred to in the practice of criminal law as a “split.”
Although he has yet to be sentenced, this plea marks the end of a ongoing saga for Mr. Halderman, Mr. Letterman and the employee who was in the middle of the conflict. I am confident there will be ample speculation as to why both a relatively low plea recommendation was made and why Mr. Halderman accepted such a plea (Mr. Halderman had faced no minimum term of incarceration, but up to 5 to 15 years in state prison). That being said, I believe Mr. Halderman and his attorney recognized that the “screenplay defense” wasn’t going to fly. Moreover, instead of recommending a state prison sentence where Mr. Halderman would have had no other choice but to take the case to trial, the prosecution may have wanted to spare Mr. Letterman and the employee any further embarrassment.
Whether a vehicle is stolen or being driven without permission of the owner, one particular crime that may be charged in New York is Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Second and Third Degrees pursuant to New York Penal Law sections 165.06 and 165.05 respectively. While other crimes may have been perpetrated, such as Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, an “E” felony punishable by up to four years in state prison, Unauthorized Used of a Vehicle, the “joyriding statute,” is defined as follows: NY PL 165.05(1) – Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree
A person is guilty of Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle in the Third Degree when knowing that he does not have the consent of the owner, he takes, operates, exercises control over, rides in or otherwise uses a vehicle. A person who engages in any such conduct without the consent of the owner is presumed to know that he does not have such consent
New York Criminal Lawyer Blog