Info
Featured In
Media Badges

by

As a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorneys Office and as a criminal defense attorney in New York City, I could probably write a book on the stupid things people say when confronted by the police. Maybe they think they are going to talk themselves out of trouble or maybe they are just nervous, but the end result is often the same….they get themselves in deeper water and often end up being placed under arrest. A defendant in Queens County charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (Penal Law 265.03(1) and 265.03(3)), learned this lesson the hard way.

In People v. Virgilio Rodriguez, 2632/08, decided June 23, 2009, police responded to “shots fired.” When they arrived at the location the officers asked what happened and some individuals pointed to the defendant and stated that the officers should ask him. Upon asking the defendant what happened the defendant admitted that he shot off his gun and then voluntarily brought the officers to his office a few feet away and retrieved his gun from the desk drawer. The police placed the defendant under arrest and brought him to the precinct and ultimately central booking. During this time, the family obtained a criminal defense attorney for the defendant and the attorney filed a notice with the court (a letter indicating that the defendant has counsel). Despite this, the police questioned the defendant on video. Ultimately, the defendant’s attorney challenged both the statement at the scene as well as the video statement. Unfortunately for the defendant, the court ruled that his statement was admissible as it was made at the scene voluntarily and while the police where investigating. In a close to literal sense, the defendant shot himself in his foot for opening his mouth at the scene.

Continue reading

by

According to the Brooklyn (Kings County) District Attorney’s Office, a Brooklyn, New York Grand Jury indicted Peter Galin on 27 counts of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, Scheme To Defraud in the First Degree and Petit Larceny. Galin, a travel agent and proprietor of TravelCenterOnline.Com, is alleged to have defrauded 12 clients by taking their money and using it for his personal use as opposed to booking and arranging for their travel and vacations. It is alleged that clients paid Mr. Galin between $400 and $5,500 for travel plans that were never made. Despite being given receipts for his services, Mr. Galin’s clients allegedly received nothing at all. One such client arrived at the airport on the scheduled day of departure to learn that no airline reservations had been made.

If convicted at trial, Mr. Galin faces no mandatory minimum sentence, but up to 2 and 1/3 to 7 years in state prison on the top charges.

Continue reading

by

Make no mistake. New York DWI / DUI laws have just gotten significantly harsher. In fact, pursuant to New York Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL) section 1192.2-a(b) / 1192(2a)(b), otherwise know as Leandra’s Law, a misdemeanor Driving While Intoxicated is “bumped up” to a felony offense if you perpetrate the “drunk driving” crimes of VTL 1192.2, VTL 1192.3, VTL 1192.4 or VTL 1192.4(a) and a child 15 years old or younger is in that vehicle.

More specifically, one can be charged with felony DWI / DUI pursuant to VTL 1192.2-a(b) / VTL 1192(2a)(b) when that person either has a BAC of .08 or greater, is intoxicated due to drug or alcohol ingestion or is “common law” DWI. Although often more difficult to prove due to the lack of scientific evidence, “common law” DWI refers to cases where an individual does not give a reading or sample of breath, urine or blood, but the police articulate the individual’s intoxication due to certain characteristics such as unsteadiness on one’s feet, slurred speech, the smell of alcohol, and watery-blood shot eyes, etc.

Continue reading

by

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has announced the arrest and indictment of John Runowicz, a University administrator for an alleged ongoing theft in the neighborhood of $400,000. According to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, Mr. Runowicz was indicted by a Grand Jury for the crimes of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a class C felony and six counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a class E felony. If convicted, Mr. Runowicz faces up to 5 to 15 years and up to 1?? to 4 years in state prison on the respective charges.

As administrator for the University’s chemistry department, Mr. Runowicz oversaw and managed the budget and handled the financial matters for that department. In this capacity, prosecutors alleged that Mr. Runowicz “caused thousands of fraudulent requests for petty cash reimbursement to be submitted to the university Bursar’s Office. [Mr.] Runowicz scavenged discarded cash register receipts from a local liquor store, attached them to reimbursement request forms, and falsely claimed that the expenses were for chemistry department supply purchases and other functions. None of those receipts reflected legitimate business expenses. Carrying on his scheme for over five years, [Mr.] Runowicz fraudulently submitted over 13,000 receipts from the liquor store and stole $409,000.

Continue reading

by

In New York, a misdemeanor theft or larceny can easily be enhanced to a felony in certain circumstances. In fact, pursuant to New York Penal Law Section 155.30(5), Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, it is a felony punishable by up to four years in state prison if you perpetrate the crime commonly known as “Grand Larceny from the Person.”

Pursuant to New York Penal Law Section 155.30(5), Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree:

Continue reading

by

Saland Law PC, is pleased to announce that another client has benefited from our experience, knowledge and advocacy. Our client, a movie “middle man” who procured funding for multi-million dollar projects, met with prosecutors after being contacted about a disgruntled client. Prior to retaining Saland Law PC, and without any legal representation, our client met with law enforcement officials and made statements that could be construed as admissions relating to Grand Larceny and Forgery crimes. More specifically, prosecutors accused our client of stealing, through false pretenses, approximately $17,500. Moreover, prosecutors alleged that our client created and displayed fraudulent bank documents and contracts that were used to “fool” the movie companies that utilized his services.

After months of legal wrangling our client’s case is over. Through our diligence, our client avoided the embarrassment of being arrested at his home or place of business. On the same day we had our client voluntarily turn himself in, prosecutors arranged to have him see the judge and have his charges dropped down from felony Grand Larceny and Forgery to lesser misdemeanor offenses. At his arraignment, only a few hours after his voluntary surrender, our client pleaded to one count of Petit Larceny, a misdemeanor of pursuant to NY Penal Law section 155.25 (otherwise known as the “shoplifting statute”). Moreover, the judge sentenced him at that time to a conditional discharge. This plea not only saved our client from the humiliation of any felony, but our client avoided jail (he was facing up to seven years in state prison), probation and community service while finishing his case only hours after he voluntarily turned himself into detectives.

Continue reading

by

There is little doubt that if your home is the target of a search warrant in New York, you, as the homeowner or tenant who resides there, would have the standing or ability to challenge a search warrant executed at that premises. However, one factor that may change the dynamic of this equation is where you (again, as the homeowner who resides there or tenant who lives there) are prevented from temporarily entering or living in the premises due to an order of protection or restraining order. The obvious question then becomes, what rights or standing, if any, do you have to challenge a search of that premises pursuant to a search warrant where there is an existing order of protection keeping your from that location?

Regardless of the fruits of that search, i.e, whether the police find drugs, guns, etc, decisions have not been favorable to those who are barred from a particular premises even if they are the owners. In fact, in a recent decision from October 20, 2009 in Kings County (Brooklyn) Supreme Court, a judge found that “the defendant has no standing to challenge the validity of the search warrant since the court issued a full Order of Protection for the victim and her son.” People v. Dorcinvil

Continue reading

by

It often takes the trained criminal eye of a New York criminal defense attorney or lawyer to locate and assess the nuances between similar statutes. Deciphering the language between similar statutes could mean the difference between facing a misdemeanor or a violent felony. One example of this found in statutes relating to Kidnapping and Unlawful Imprisonment. Although each of these statutes have their own unique language, at a basic level the difference between Kidnapping (NY Penal Law 135.20 and 125.25) and Unlawful Imprisonment (NY Penal Law 135.05 and 135.10) hinges on two key words defined by statute and interpreted by case law. Those key words are “restrain” and “abduct.” Today’s entry will address the general definitions applicable to Kidnapping and Unlawful Imprisonment. Additionally, I will give an overview of the crimes of Unlawful Imprisonment in the First and Second Degrees. At a later date I will analyze the Kidnapping statute under New York State law.

､ 135.00 Unlawful Imprisonment, Kidnapping and Custodial Interference; definitions of terms

Continue reading

by

A drink sounds a lot better than the “clink,” right about now for two people charged with Bribery in the Third Degree, a class D felony, and Attempted Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, a class E felony. It is alleged that Annie Guerrero and Maria Elena Nunez got caught up in a fraudulent scheme nearly a year ago, but only landed themselves in court for the first time today.

According to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, the alleged partners in crime were also foes:

Continue reading

by

Although the Rockefeller Drug Laws have certainly eased over the years, New York Criminal defense attorneys and their clients must have a working knowledge as to the law involving legal presumptions and Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance. While often times the police allegedly observe a sale or the actual possession, New York’s Penal Law permits certain presumptions that the accused possessed the drugs in question. These presumptions are narrowly construed, but may be applicable in your case depending on the facts and circumstances. Whether the drug is cocaine, heroin or crack, the following presumptions apply:

220.25 Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance; Presumption:

Continue reading

Contact Information
52 Duane St 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Office: 212.312.7129Fax: 212.918.9375
By appointment only
50 Main St #1000
White Plains, NY 10606
By appointment only
254 S Main St #500
New City, NY 10956
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING - Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

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 © 2025, Saland Law PC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design