New York Theft and Larceny Lawyers Blog

Calling it a theme may be too strong, but Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. is plugging away on his mission to snag, a/k/a, arrest, white collar defendants who commit Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property felonies in New York City. One look at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office website will reveal a laundry list of defendants who have either been indicted for or convicted of a theft or fraud crime. In fact, the website even republishes articles by local newspapers on many of the same cases addressed in these various press releases. It need not take a legal scholar to grasp that C. Vance and Company runs one District Attorney's Office that is serious and aggressive about prosecuting more than Gotham's street crime.

According to the District Attorney's Office, the newest "victim," of law enforcement's watchful eye is Rickey Smith for stealing more than $250,000 from the low-income Housing Development Fund Corporation. No small number, if true, the potential sentence for Grand Larceny in the Second Degree is as much as five to fifteen years in prison. Even though a conviction for New York Penal Law 155.40 does not require imprisonment for a first time offender, there should be little doubt that prosecutors will seek some amount of jail or prison. In addition to Second Degree Grand Larceny, a Grand Jury also indicted Smith for three counts of First Degree Falsifying Business Records. A lesser felony, New York Penal Law 175.10 is punishable by as much as one and one third to four years in state prison.

It is alleged that Smith, who previously served as the property manager for the Housing Development Fund Corporation ("HDFC"), "fleeced" the HDFC for his own personal gain and even purchased a Mercedes for north of $40,000. Smith is believed to have had access to HDFC funds because he managed the day-to-day financial operations of the HDFC properties through his company, Alexa Property Management, LLC.

Although the press release does not reveal what, if any restitution can possible be made, prosecutors contend that between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2010, Smith stole more than $250,000 by making unauthorized wire transfers from HDFC bank accounts to his personal bank accounts. Further, Smith used an HDFC debit card to access monies he was not entitled to use in a personal capacity. Not only did Smith allegedly purchase a vehicle with these funds, but it is believed monies were used by Smith to work on his own home. Ultimately, to hide the alleged fraud, prosecutors believe Smith created false or fake financial reports or documents.

Whether it is the Manhattan District Attorney's Office or prosecutors from Queens or other New York Counties, law enforcement is pursuing white collar crime at a greater rate than it did years ago. Whether this is a product of the tough economic times where each dollar must be accounted for, investigating and prosecuting theft offenses from government and pseudo-government agencies will not likely slow down any time soon.

Whether Smith's best defense is to mitigate his conduct, pay restitution as best he can or to challenge the "paper trail" is yet to be seen. Was there a confession? Where search warrants, if any, proper? Time will certainly tell.

To read and learn more about any theft crime in New York including Grand Larceny and any fraud offense including Falsifying Business Records, a review of the links above as well as the websites and blogs below will reveal ample information on these topics.

A New York City criminal defense firm established by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represent clients in all New York white collar crimes from investigation through trial.

One need not perpetrate an Embezzlement or an Extortion to be arrested or charged with a New York Grand Larceny crime. Heck, outright scheming by forging checks is so "yesterday." If you want to be on the forefront of Grand Larceny offenses, you have to concoct a solid heist. Although he did not get away with it, according to Cyrus Vance's Manhattan District Attorney's Office, Phivos Istavrioglou was indicted by a New York Grand Jury for his alleged theft of Salvador Dali's 1949 watercolor, "Cartel de Don Juan Tenorio." While the $150,000 price tag is certainly lost on me (I assume an expert testified in the Grand Jury that the painting is worth more than a 1978 Bob Ross "Happy Little Trees"), Istavrioglou is facing serious crimes and potentially serious time.

According to reports, Istavrioglou strolled into an Upper East Side art gallery, opened up a shopping bag, removed "Cartel de Don Juan Tenorio" from the wall and dropped it right inside. Despite surveillance cameras set up around the gallery, Istavrioglou strolled right out. There can be little doubt that the gallery has some explaining to do in their complete lapse of security when such valuable and historic pieces of artwork are left vulnerable, but maintaing compromised security is not a crime. Stealing, however, is.

Immediately after the alleged theft, Istavrioglou flew to Greece where he soon learned a manhunt had begun to not only secure the return of the watercolor, but to apprehend the offender. Allegedly claiming that his theft was in fact merely a testing of the gallery's security, Istavrioglou placed the painting in a cardboard poster tube that previously housed a 1989 Carol Alt swimsuit poster from his basement apartment in his parent's home, and sent it back to the gallery. While one might believe this was the end of the alleged criminal shenanigans, detectives posed as potential employers and lured Istavrioglou back to the United States with their own clever ruse. Claiming there was a job opportunity and posing as potential employers, detectives convinced Istravrioglou to return to New York where he was promptly arrested for the gallery theft. An investigation into whether or not Istavrioglou paid for the $2 airline headphones during his trip back to the US of A is currently ongoing.

All the fun and kidding aside, if true, Istravrioglou's conduct is not just serious, but felonious. As a preliminary matter, how is Istravrioglou identified as the art thief? Did he make an admission, identify himself in the surveillance video or are the fingerprints from the watercolor and packaging the strongest evidence? Alternatively, is there a combination of this and other evidence in the hands of prosecutors? If his defense is that he was testing the security (which is also an admission he took the painting), why then was the watercolor brought to Greece? Why was it not immediately returned and when it was, why was it not properly shipped? Equally obvious, what authority did Istravrioglou have to test the security and swipe the painting?

Cases such as a major art theft are ones where prosecutors are likely to be firm in their dealings. From a law enforcement perspective, brazen thefts of property valued beyond dollars cannot be treated with "kid gloves." Here, even assuming Istravrioglou has no criminal record, a conviction for New York Penal Law 155.40, Second Degree Grand Larceny, is punishable by a sentence of up to fifteen years. There is little doubt that prosecutors will be asking for some prison whether or not it is the maximum permitted by law.

To learn more about New York Grand Larceny crimes and other theft offenses such as Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Embezzlement, Extortion and Tax Crime, follow the highlighted links or go directly to NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com (linked below).

Established by two New York criminal defense attorneys who served as Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients in all white collar and larceny crimes throughout the New York City region.

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown is the Energizer Bunny of fraud scheme prosecutors. Running on batteries that never die, DA Brown just announced the arrests and indictments of Hazel Abrams, Aaron Dawkins, Antoinette Duncan, Tamara Easy, Wilburt Gordon, Albert Kopolovich, Raymond Mattison, Rolph Nozine and Jason Wade for their alleged involvement in a Queens Village no-fault insurance fraud scheme. In addition to the felony arrests of these men and women, prosecutors also indicted Queens Integrated Medical Care (previously Arco Medical, P.C). More specifically, these defendant's now face DA Brown's wrath for numerous charges including Third Degree Grand Larceny (New York Penal Law 155.35), Third Degree Insurance Fraud (New York Penal Law 176.20) and First Degree Falsifying Business Records (New York Penal Law 175.10). Make no mistake. Having defended individuals for large scale fraud and larceny schemes in Queens, I know DA Brown means business. Even assuming these men and woman have no criminal record, each faces up to two and one third to seven years in prison.

According to the press release, the "fraud factory" at Queens Integrated Medical Care bilked insurance companies out of $150,000. Certainly not a large number in terms of other arrests and indictments handled by that office, the amount of the alleged theft is still significant. Although any theft in excess of $50,000, but no more than $1,000,000 is a "C" felony of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (punishable by as much as fifteen years in prison), the fraud scheme alleged here actually consists of seven separate indictments. Therefore, the total value of the alleged insurance fraud is not aggregated to increase the degree of the offense.

If prosecutors are correct, five individuals involved in fairly insignificant car accidents received cash from two "runners" who coached these "accident victims" on how to exaggerate the injuries they sustained. Further these "runners" then steered them to the Queens Integrated Medical Care where they received medical treatment they did not need (and ultimately insurance footed the bill). The clinic receptionist and manager are also alleged to have paid the "runners" for finding the patients.

Simply, DA Brown, just like chief prosecutors in throughout the counties of New York City, have zero tolerance for any scheme that defrauds the State of New York or any private company. In fact, this investigation began in 2008 and prosecutors have seen it through from its initial stage to what was likely wire taps, search warrants and clearly arrests. All of these elements of a long term investigation should be concerning to those arrested and accused. What will their defenses be and how will they implement them? Is it possible that some of these men and women were caught up in something that was not of their own making? Where did the alleged ill gotten gains and proceeds go? Can prosecutors track the money? Was an informant involved or an undercover police officer? Alternatively, was the case the culmination of good ole' police work? Whatever the answers may be, these defendants and the criminal defense attorneys will soon find out.

To educate yourself on the crimes of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree, Insurance Fraud in the Third Degree and Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, follow any of the links throughout this entry. Further reading can be found on this blog and the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com (linked below).

A criminal defense firm representing clients throughout New York City in all white collar and theft crimes, the two founding New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC served as Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys prior to starting the criminal defense practice.

What can easily be described as one of the best results one could achieve in a case involving allegations of New York Criminal Tax Fraud and Grand Larceny, the New York criminal defense lawyers and Grand Larceny defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC secured a misdemeanor plea without probation or incarceration for a client accused of New York tax crimes in excess of $180,000. Initially, prosecutors sought our client's surrender, arrest and potential indictment for crimes including Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, New York Penal Law 155.40 and Criminal Tax Fraud in the Second Degree, New York Tax Law 1805. If convicted of these crimes, our client faced as much as five to fifteen years in state prison on each count. Simply, it was alleged our client withheld these tax dollars and wrongfully filed returns.

Unfortunately, upon being advised of the investigation, the Assistant District Attorney spearheading the criminal case initially sought a felony plea. Crotty Saland PC argued that while sales tax monies may in fact be owed, the dollar amount suggested by prosecutors was incorrect. Regardless of the amount, our client did not have the intent to steal. Obviously, the defense pursued on our client's behalf was very fact specific, but was not without its pitfalls, for example, one commits a Tax Fraud Act, the basis of any Criminal Tax Fraud crime, if one fails to file a return. In that regard, there were certain difficulties in a complete defense to the allegations. Despite these concerns, however, one of our criminal lawyers successfully argued that not only should the crime be prosecuted as a misdemeanor New York Criminal Tax Fraud 1802, but that the dollar amount was more than $40,000 less than the $180,000 claimed by the District Attorney's Office.

After months of conferences, conversations and reviews of the files and evidence, the New York Tax Fraud lawyers at Crotty Saland PC surrendered our client where our client agreed to plea to one misdemeanor offense. Our client paid back the approximately $140,000 and received a conditional discharge. In substance, our client was merely required to pay a $1,000 fine and any interest due on the withheld monies. While paling in comparison to the ultimate tremendous resolution, on the day of the surrender our client was booked, processed and out of court within approximately five hours.

Remember, each case is unique and may have advantages or disadvantages over cases involving the exact same set of crimes. Fortunately, diligence on the part of our criminal lawyers helped secure a "top shelf" result.

To read about New York's theft and larceny crimes including the varying degrees of Grand Larceny and Criminal Tax Fraud, please review the links above or the main websites and blogs linked below.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm created be two former Manhattan prosecutors. The New York criminal lawyers and former Assistant District Attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represent clients in all White Collar, theft and larceny matters throughout the New York City area.

While most people think Grand Larceny is always a White Collar crime, the laws of New York State do not always reflect that misconception. Yes, while New York White Collar criminal lawyers and Grand Larceny defense attorneys who represent clients in these offenses routinely do so in the context of an Embezzlement or Criminal Tax Fraud, a Grand Larceny arrest need not be White Collar. One Grand Larceny crime that stands out from the White Collar pack, is Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.30(5). This specific subsection does not address the value of a theft or the nature of the property stolen, but codifies the felony of taking property from another's person. Simply, if you take property from the person of another (the watch from their wrist, wallet in their pocket, cash in their hand or even bag over their shoulder), you are guilty of a crime that caries a sentence of up to four years in prison. Although it wouldn't be a completely fair description as force is not an element of this crime, NY PL 155.30(5) can be described as Robbery "light."

What is interesting about this particular subsection of Grand Larceny is how it not only is completely different than other sub crimes of PL 155.30, but the ease by which it is prosecuted. Did you get into a fight with your neighbor and take his mobile phone and run off or are you a pickpocket that New Yorkers are warned about during their daily commute in Gotham's subterranean transit system? Arguably the first hypothetical doesn't seem overly devious in comparison to the second. In the eyes of the law, however, there is no distinction.

Recently, a defendant, post-trial, tried to squirrel out of his conviction for Grand Larceny from the person, a/k/a, GL 155.30(5). In an interesting interpretation of the law (albeit a failed one), the defendant argued that if the victim did not know the defendant was removing property from the victim's person, he was not guilty of this crime. The First Department, in kicking this theory and defense out the courtroom doors, recognized that whether a complainant knows he or she is a victim of a theft at the time of a taking is irrelevant. Although the Court did not state the following, if an employer was a victim of an Embezzlement for years and never learned about it until after the theft stopped and he or she was notified by a third party, would a Grand Larceny or other theft not have transpired? Obviously, the answer is a crime was committed.

Circling back to New York Penal Law 155.30(5), in People v. Mack, 2013 NY Slip Op 00036, the defendant had cut the sleeping victim's pant pocket and removed his wallet (two lessons here...first, don't pass out on the train and two, if one has that level of skill with a blade, one should be a surgeon). While the complainant did not wake, police observed the defendant's conduct. Arguably, whether "a victim [is] able to feel something being taken may have some evidentiary significance in a case where there is an issue of whether the victim was in physical contact with the property," this particular issue was moot due to the police witnesses. Ultimately what mattered was that the defendant took property from the person of the complainant irrespective of the victim noticing.

To read more about any type of New York Grand Larceny crime, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Embezzlement, Tax Crime or New York Penal Law 155.30(5), follow any of the highlighted links or review the abundant materials in the websites and blogs listed below.

Established by two former Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys who spend a combined thirteen years as prosecutors before starting the criminal defense practice, the New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represent clients in all stages of criminal investigations, arrests and trials.

Some people wait to reorder toner and ink when their printer spews out documents with faint vertical stripes. Others jump to purchase more when their computer screen flashes the low ink warning. Rumor has it that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. could care less when his staff speed dials Staples to replace ink (well, with budget cuts throughout NYC he probably prefers waiting until the former and not the latter). Its not so much the timing of when one orders copy machine or printer toner that gets DA Vance's goat, but whether or not the person is authorized to do so and does so in a manner that is consistent with his or her employment. Setting the tone for future work place malfeasance, DA Vance announced the indictment of Adrian Rodriguez, a former Fried Frank LLP employee, for allegedly purchasing north of $375,000 worth of ink and toner that he then sold at a fraction of the cost to line his own pockets.

The Manhattan District Attorney's Office worked with Fried Frank LLP to catch the duplication department desperado by setting up a sting operation whereby undercover investigators hid inside refrigerator sized boxes of copy machine toner and ink delivered to the unsuspecting toner thief (small pencil sized holes were poked throughout to enable viewing and oxygen flow). When Rodriguez attempted to sell the ill gotten gains the following day, investigators immediately jumped out and exclaimed, "gotcha!" Shortly thereafter, Rodriguez voluntarily supplied prosecutors with a written confession on 48 blue and pink Post-its.

Sadly for Rodriguez, there is nothing cute or funny about his alleged theft (despite my efforts of course). The allegations and amount of the larceny are quite serious. While the above description of the events gave me a chuckle in an otherwise boring day, law enforcement did in fact conduct a sting operation where they allegedly tracked toner back to Rodriguez. Irrespective of how the investigation transpired, if true, Rodriguez faces serious crimes....and rightfully so (if you are looking for a defense attorney who will coddle you, you are probably in the wrong place). Although not indicted for lesser felonies such as Falsifying Business Records, Rodriguez now faces two counts of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.40. A "C" felony, NY PL 155.40 carries a potential sentence for an individual with no record with as much as five to fifteen years in state prison. Simply, to prove the case against Rodriguez, prosecutors would be required to establish that he wrongfully obtained property that he intentionally took through some form of theft and the value exceeded $50,000, but was not greater than $1,000,000. Remember, Grand Larceny requires the theft or any type of property. Value then dictates the degree of the crime a defendant will face.

For those who are watching, the Vance administration is continuing to follow in the footsteps of New York's Prosecutor, former District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. Arguably, the New York District Attorney's Office is becoming the "Mini-Feds" by behaving more rigid than the last administration in terms of white collar prosecutions and dispositions. If nothing else, DA Vance is certainly sending a strong message whether or not potential criminals are listening. If you commit crimes of financial fraud in Manhattan, do not be surprised when you are arrested and prosecuted. Further, do not be shocked when prosecutors seek significant bail and long prison sentences. Whether it is the theft of toner, cash or widgets, be prepared to mount a vigorous defense...If DA Vance has his way, it will not be "if" but "when" law enforcement catches up to you.

To learn more about any degree of Grand Larceny including Second Degree Grand Larceny, follow the links found in this entry. Additional information is available on the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com where you will find analysis of larceny crimes, statutes and legal decisions.

The New York Grand Larceny lawyers and criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represent clients in all types of White Collar crime investigations, arrests and trials. Both founding partners served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorneys Office prior to establishing the law firm.

Arrests for shoplifting in New York City are horrendous, but when that arrest is for shoplifting property valued more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), the accusation can become a game changer in terms of your future both inside and outside the courtroom. As noted and addressed in numerous blog entries, any New York arrest that involves a theft or larceny greater than $1,000 is a felony. In practical terms, this means that should you be convicted, you can lose not just your freedom to incarceration, but you can also lose your professional license to practice in your given field. Unfortunately for a client of Crotty Saland PC, this is the exact scenario our client faced after being charged with an "E" felony shoplift for allegedly stealing between $1,000 and $3,000 worth of clothing from a department store.

Not the first professional or graduate school educated client represented by the New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC for felony shoplifting and Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree (New York Penal Law 155.30), our criminal lawyers knew they had their work cut out. For professionals such as this particular client, it is not just that a felony would be an unacceptable resolution, a misdemeanor plea to Petit Larceny (New York Penal Law 155.25) or Fifth Degree Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (New York Penal Law 165.40) would be only nominally better. Although it took significant amount of time preparing "papers" as to why our client deserved the benefit of the doubt and explaining the incident beyond the four corners of the felony complaint, eventually the District Attorney's Office agreed to give our client a "re-pleader." In the world of criminal law, such a disposition provides an accused a means to avoid a criminal record if he or she follows certain criteria established in advance of a plea. Although not necessarily part of this particular deal, such conditions may include counseling, community service or a fine. After an agreed upon time frame, the accused is able to withdraw his or her plea and obtain a violation or even an ACD.

Just like the case referenced above, Crotty Saland PC's client pleaded to a misdemeanor shoplifting crime with the promise that if the client adhered to certain conditions the client would be able to take back the criminal plea and accept a non-criminal violation. Where an individual is not sentenced because the plea is withdrawn, New York does not recognize that plea as a conviction. Because the nature of this client's profession, the client was able to minimize potential harm and devastation to the client's law license and career.

While the New York shoplifting attorneys and criminal defense lawyers at Crotty Saland PC have resolved felony shoplifting arrests for clients exceeding $1,000, $2,000 and even more, every case is unique. Just because each Crotty Saland PC client charged with Grand Larceny in this context avoided a criminal record does not mean it was an easy process or that future clients will be equally fortunate to obtain these results. Our criminal attorneys will always advocate zealously and understand what we need to provide to prosecutors, but no resolution is guaranteed until a case is finalized.

Whomever you determine will best articulate your defense, take the time to educate yourself on New York shoplifting laws and understand the criminal process. To that end, a review of the links above or the blogs and websites below will provide a foundation to better grasp New York's shoplifting laws and the statutes and cases that define them.

A New York criminal defense firm established by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent clients in Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property arrests throughout the New York City region.

It is fairly common for store security at Macy's, Bloomingdale's, Century 21 or any other New York City department store in Manhattan, Brooklyn or Queens, to "jump the gun" when apprehending or detaining an individual for shoplifting. Often time, an arrested shoplifter in New York is accused of placing items in his or her bag or tote as the basis of a shoplifting arrest despite there being no criminal intent on the part of the accused. While prosecutors may charge these people with the "shoplifting crimes" of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree (NY PL 165.40) or Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25), a little bit of investigation on the front end may have clearly established an arrest was unwarranted. Sadly, although any defendant has a right to a criminal attorney or, in this case, a New York City shoplifting lawyer, by the time an accused speaks to their counsel they have already been printed and processed with a shoplifting Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT). Unfortunately, the department store or the police have little concern at this juncture that a false allegation can ruin your professional career or jeopardize your immigration status.

As a preliminary matter, most NYC department stores do not give their patrons carts or reusable totes to place their potential purchases while shopping. Therefore, when one's hands are full, one has little choice but to put the items in a bag that one brought to the store whether it be a pocketbook, canvas bag or even the bottom of a stroller. Also, because most department stores in New York are on multiple floors, its is far from unreasonable that a patron would go up and down elevators, escalators or stairs while perusing potential purchases. In fact, during any outing, numerous cash registers will be passed as a shopper continues to decide what to purchase or try on. Sadly, this innocent behavior can not just lead to an arrest by a rude or bullying store security officer, but the police will arrest you without investigating the validity of the store employee's assertion. It will be up to you and your criminal defense lawyer to recreate what truly happened.

Having addressed the common circumstance where shoppers are arrested, both fairly and falsely, I have some bad news. While there are many elements to an arrest and your arrest for PL 155.25 or PL 165.40 may be baseless, you can be arrested without ever stepping foot out of a store. That's right. I'll say that again. Whether you are in a big department store in New York City or some little shop in White Plains or Yonkers, you can be arrested for shoplifting even if you never exited the store. Any attorney who has real experience in shoplifting defense can direct you to People v. Olivo, 52 N.Y.2d 309 (1981). There, the Court of Appeals set certain standards as to when such an arrest can occur. Just as in People v. McDonald, 91 A.D.3d 515 (1st Dept. 2012), where the defendants placed numerous video games in their backpacks, went past cash registers and approached the exit, if the evidence reasonably (the real guidelines are probable cause to arrest and beyond a reasonable doubt to convict), establishes you "exercise[d] dominion and control wholly inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner, and the other elements of the crime are present, a larceny has occurred." Conduct need not be as egregious as in People v. Stapkowitz, 40 A.D.3d 435 (1st Dept. 2007) where court convicted a defendant of NY shoplifting crimes when he stood on a table to remove a chandelier, advise store staff he had paid for it already (which he had not), walked down multiple floors and fled after he was approached by security prior to leaving the establishment. Moving up and down levels, past registers and "hiding" clothes or other items in a bag may be enough.

Remember, store security officers often wrongfully or falsely detain shoppers. Maybe they honestly believe a shoplifting occurred or maybe they are incentivized to apprehend people and scare them into forking over $500 civil judgments. Compounding matters, at the time of an arrest for either NY PL 165.40 or NY PL 155.25, the police often don't give your statement as much clout or review video surveillance. As a result, after you have been arrested, you and your attorney must identify your defense, put that defense into motion and achieve the vindication you deserve or pursue the best possible outcome.

Any arrest is scary, but a false arrest is even more concerning. Arm yourself with education and learn about these crimes and the criminal process. To find out more about New York shoplifting laws or any other theft and larceny crime, follow the links found throughout this blog entry or review the websites and blogs listed below. Between the websites and blog entries you will find ample information on criminal statutes, collateral consequences, legal decisions and cases covered in the local news that relate to shoplifting arrests and allegations.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm located in New York City. Established by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC have successfully represented clients in felony and misdemeanor shoplifting investigations and arrests in the New York City area.

Not necessarily the most serious of all theft and larceny related offenses in New York, Fraudulent Accosting is still a crime that not only can land you behind bars for up to one year, but a conviction for New York Penal Law 165.30 is permanent. In other words, it ain't ever goin' away! All humor aside, one who is accused of any crime must recognize the long term and collateral consequences of an arrest or conviction. Because of this, one must also pursue any legal defense available. In People v. Juan Bannister, 2012CN005065, NYLJ 1202582020231, at *1 (Crim. NY, Decided December 10, 2012), the defendant did just that when he actively exercised his rights with his criminal defense attorney to defend himself.

The complaint or information against Bannister alleged that he had committed the crime of NY PL 165.30. In legal terms it was alleged that he accosted a person in a public place with the intent to defraud or swindle that person by means of a trick or confidence game.

According to the information, the defendant waived down taxi cabs about one block from Penn Station. During a ten minute period, the defendant attempted to waive down numerous taxis while blocking traffic. At one point, the defendant successfully had a cab stop and he then assisted a passenger and his luggage into the taxi. The defendant received money for his services. While one might argue the defendant was merely being a good denizen of Gotham, the defendant was wearing an Amtrak lanyard around his neck, the end of which was tucked into defendant's shirt pocket, where it could not be seen. The alleged trickery not ending there, "in place of any kind of official Amtrak identification at the end of [the] lanyard, there was a key which [the] defendant had placed in defendant's chest pocket."

In dismissing the misdemeanor crime of Fraudulent Accosting, the court zeroed in on the term or element of "accosting." Yes, the defendant appeared to be tricking potential passengers into believing that he was an Amtrak employee in that he possessed proper identification (which turned out to be a key), but did the defendant accost these pedestrians? According to the court, "although fraudulent accosting is in essence 'a theft offense aimed primarily at confidence artists who prey upon the gullible' (William C. Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law §165.30 at 238), evidence of fraud alone is not enough, since essential to the crime is an additional and distinct element of accosting. To accost means 'to approach and speak to'; 'speak to without having first been spoken to.' (Webster's Third New International Dictionary 12 [1993])."

Because the information charging the defendant with NY PL 165.30 was devoid of any assertion that he "initiate[d] contact with the potential victim in some manner" (People v. Tanner, 153 Misc 2d 742, 745 [Crim Ct, NY County 1992]), the People failed to establish the facial sufficiency of the crime. Could the defendant have approached pedestrians? Alternatively, could those pedestrians have approached the defendant? Fortunately, for anyone charged with a crime, "[c]onduct equally compatible with guilt or innocence cannot supply reasonable cause" for an arrest (see People v. Carrasquillo, 54 NY2d 248, 254 [1981]).

While this defendant was not out of the water with a dismissal of the Fraudulent Accosting charge, the remaining offenses were non-criminal and of much less significance.

To learn more about any of New York's theft and larceny crimes including Petit Larceny, Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Theft of Services, Fraudulent Accosting and other offenses, a review of any of the sites listed below or links above will provide comprehensive information. Further, both this blog and the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com contain analysis and review of criminal statutes, cases in the news and legal decisions.

A New York criminal law firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represents clients from investigation and arrest through hearing and trial throughout the New York City region.

Shoplifting arrests throughout New York City are relatively common events. Sadly, whether it is at Bergdorf Goodman in Manhattan, Century 21 in Queens or any other department store in Brooklyn, often time an overzealous or moderately experienced store security officer is all to eager to assume you were shoplifting. Even worse, they are ready to bully you into signing paperwork they will shove in your face without explanation. Maybe it is because there are bonuses paid by employers or built in incentives, but whatever the reason there have been countless people accused of and arrested for shoplifting in New York who committed no crime at all. Not only have I witnessed this as a New York criminal defense attorney who routinely represents clients in shoplifting arrests, but as a Manhattan Assistant District Attorney where I prosecuted shoplifters for both felony and misdemeanor offenses.

A case that drives this point home is People v. Lioudmila Haimovici. In Haimovici, it was alleged that the defendant stole from a Macy's Department Store. More specifically, Haimovici was charged with and arrested for violating New York Penal Law 155.25, Petit Larceny. An A misdemeanor, NY PL 155.25 is a serious crime that carries a sentence of as much as one year in a county jail (hello, Rikers!). It was alleged that the defendant brought unpaid store merchandise into a restroom where he was then stopped immediately after exiting a stall. After a bench trial (also called a "judge trial"), the court found the defendant guilty of Attempted Petit Larceny, New York Penal Law 110/155.25.

In reversing the defendant's conviction for Attempted Petit Larceny, the Appellate Court first recognized that the People (prosecution) must establish that the defendant possessed the specific intent to perpetrate shoplifting (actually Petit Larceny since there is no Penal Law crime of "shoplifting"). This intent may be inferred from circumstances surrounding that person's actions (see People v. Olivo, 52 NY2d 309 (1981) addressed in our NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com for a review the case). These factors may include "concealment of merchandise while in close proximity to or moving towards an exit, possession of a known shoplifting device, removal of a sensor device or price tag, switching price tags and switching personal property with merchandise." In the instant case, none of these factors existed. Instead, a person entered a bathroom with merchandise that had not been purchased and that person was apprehended and arrested for a crime before exiting the bathroom. Clearly, even if true, this evidence was not sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Haimovici committed or attempted to commit Petit Larceny. Instead, what this case "proved" is that all too often, store security officers jump to conclusions of guilt before taking the time to analyze and assess your conduct and actions. Further, it is a very real example of how a shoplifting arrest can unravel one's life.

Whether you are arrested for shoplifting and accused of Petit Larceny or Criminal Possession of a Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree (New York Penal Law 165.40), exploring every defense, evidentiary, factual, procedural and those based in mitigation, is a must. Your shoplifting lawyer or criminal attorney should not merely assume you actions are consistent with guilt. Where were you stopped? Where was the property? What did you say? Identifying your defense and reviewing all the factors may make a difference between "guilt" and "innocence." This certainly was lost on Haimovici even if prosecutors could not see they were prosecuting an innocent person.

To learn all about the crimes of NY PL 165.40, NY PL 155.25 as well as the felony shoplifting crimes of Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, a review of this blog as well as the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com, CrottySaland.Com and NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com (all linked below) will reveal a tremendous amount of information including statute and cases analysis.

A New York criminal defense firm established by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland represent clients in all types and degrees of shoplifting arrests throughout New York City and many suburban counties.

No two cases in New York involving arrests for theft crimes such as Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property are alike. Sure, there may be similarities in two Embezzlement cases or two felony Grand Larceny shoplifts, but beyond similarities in the technical arrest or indictment charge, there are often vastly different circumstances. How your theft lawyer or larceny defense attorney utilizes mitigating factors or analyzes the evidence will likely have a tremendous impact on the ultimate resolution in your case. Is it possible you will be forced into a trial or, alternatively, you feel a trial is in your best interest? If not, can your conduct be decreased to a misdemeanor or non criminal offense?

As New York larceny lawyers and New York criminal defense attorneys representing clients throughout the New York City region in crimes ranging from Embezzlement, Tax Fraud and Credit Card Theft to Shoplifting, felonies and misdemeanor stolen property cases, Crotty Saland PC has certainly seen its fair share of white collar crimes. Couple this experience with our two founding members service as Assistant District Attorneys in Manhattan, our criminal defense lawyers have successfully defended and prosecuted countless theft crimes. Do we have a quick answer as to how to beat your case? Do we automatically know the best defense to your arrest? Can we guarantee a particular result? The answer to all these questions is clearly "no," but we certainly have the experience to identify and formulate the best defense we believe will resolve your case in an appropriate and least damaging manner.

Over the past few days and years, Crotty Saland PC has managed to avoid not just felony convictions, but even misdemeanor records for multiple clients all who were alleged to have perpetrated felony shoplifting crimes. In fact, they were arrested for stealing between $1,000 and more than $3,000 worth of clothing. Further, at least one of these clients had a prior arrest record and the other was alleged to have had clippers to remove sensors from clothing. Again, while each case is unique, our New York criminal lawyers were able to avoid jail, probation and any type of criminal record for these alleged transgressions where the original charges were Grand Larceny in the Third and Fourth Degrees.

In a similar case, our criminal attorneys secured a Disorderly Conduct violation for a client accused of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree after it was alleged our client stole multiple computers from a school over multiple dates. In an even better disposition, a client was also charged with multiple counts of Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree for allegedly stealing multiple credit cards. That client's case was ultimately dismissed and sealed with an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal or ACD.

Certainly, not all clients walk away from a case without any criminal record. That, however, does not mean a resolution is not favorable. In fact, a client of Crotty Saland PC recently received a misdemeanor plea offer after our client was indicted by a Grand Jury for Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree, and other felonies, for allegedly stealing "secret and scientific material." While a criminal misdemeanor plea, the original offer to our client involved jail and a felony record. Further, the misdemeanor plea enabled the theft lawyers at Crotty Saland PC to save our clients licenses and ability to work in the financial sector.

From getting a multimillion dollar Tax Crime investigation dropped without any criminal charges to assisting clients such as teachers, lawyers, physicians and financial services professionals in misdemeanor shoplifting arrests for Petit Larceny (NY PL 155.25) and Fifth Degree Criminal Possession of Stolen Property (NY PL165.40), Crotty Saland PC is as thorough as they are creative in their representation of clients and their successful results. While our lawyers always put their best foot forward, you too should educate yourself on the criminal law, talk to as many attorneys as you believe is appropriate and be active in your criminal defense.

To learn more about New York crimes classified as theft and larceny offenses, as well as the specific offenses reference above, please review the blogs below or follow the highlighted links above.

A New York criminal defense law firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Crotty Saland PC represents clients throughout the New York City region.

New York City prosecutors and District Attorneys are eager to find financial frauds. Not only does it give law enforcement credibility in their equal pursuit of all criminal activity from the "streets to the suites," but they also receive a portion of the restitution that they may recover.

While it is in no way fair to assert a restitution motive is the driving force behind the prosecution of these New York Grand Larceny and New York Tax crimes, it certainly gives prosecutors an added incentive to ferret out offenders whether their theft crimes occur in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens or even Westchester County. Whatever the reasoning may be, it is critical to understand that an allegation, arrest or indictment in New York for Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property or Tax crime is in no way proof that you are in fact guilty. While your immediate future will undoubtedly by frightening, your criminal lawyer may be able to establish that prosecutors are just off the mark.

In a relatively recent decision (in terms of the centuries old New York Penal Law and criminal code), New York's highest court addressed whether a defendant's failure to pay taxes constituted Grand Larceny from the State on the theory that New York was the owner of those unpaid taxes. In People v. Nappo, 94 N.Y.2d 564 (2000), the defendant was indicted for many crimes including (as pertinent here) Grand Larceny in the First Degree pursuant to New York Penal Law 155.42 (theft over $1 million dollars) and Tax Law 1812. It was alleged that in a scheme involving the importation of motor oil from New Jersey to New York, the defendants intentionally avoided paying taxes.

Although the Appellate Division (the second highest court in New York) stated that New York was the rightful owner of the tax monies withheld by the defendant, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. Specifically, the Court found that "taxes due were not the property of the State prior to their remittance. Accordingly, defendants did not steal money that belonged to New York State, but rather failed to make payments of taxes which were their personal obligations under the Tax Law."

A reading of this case should recognize the scope of the decision. For example, sales taxes, monies that are collected by vendors to be later remitted to the State of New York, are different than taxes that are due upon importation or distribution of a particular product or item. While Tax Law 1817(k) establishes that a failure to remit sales taxes collected and held in trust for the State is a crime, the circumstances in this case are vastly different. That is, the tax dollars were not payable until importation and distribution. Those dollars were not held in trust for the State like sales taxes.

Keep in mind that the value of this case is potentially significant depending on your arrest or indictment, but it is also insignificant for the same reasons. Further, while one particular crime may not have been committed, prosecutors may be able to establish other equal or serious offenses. Your New York Tax crime lawyer or criminal defense attorney should evaluate the evidence and allegations in your particular case.

To further educate yourself about Grand Larceny, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property or New York Tax crimes, follow the links found in this blog entry. Not only will you be directed back to NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com, but further reading is available below in the White Collar section of CrottySaland.Com and the NewYorkCriminalLawyerBlog.Com.

Established by two former Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys who prosecuted and investigated large-scale financial frauds and White Collar crimes, the criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represents clients throughout the New York City region.

In what can be described as an interesting twist on an increasingly common crime, Queens prosecutors have charged Delloyd Hill, a.k.a., Tom Hill, with multiple counts of Grand Larceny, Identity Theft and Scheme to Defraud for allegedly defrauding a half-a-dozen physicians. Hill's arrest stems from an investigation by the NYPD and the Queens County District Attorney's office into Hill's alleged scheme where he posed as a Harvard graduate and convinced numerous doctors to invest in an allegedly bogus medical facility. Further, it is claimed by law enforcement that Hill convinced these doctors that he was interviewing them for particular positions at the alleged fictitious facility.

According to prosecutors, between April 23, 2012, and September 25, 2012, Hill is alleged to have opened three lines of credit with the medical equipment financing company, TCF Equipment Finance Inc. The three lines of credit were opened using personal identifying information of unknowing physicians totaling in excess of $400,000. These lines allegedly totaled $215,000, $200,000, and an undetermined amount respectively. In addition to the lines of credit, District Attorney Brown believes that Hill defrauded his landlord and another individual to invest a total of $65,000 into the claimed bogus business venture.

Although the extent by which prosecutors pursue charges and different criminal theories will impact the the indictment, many of Hill's potential indictment charges are fairly clear. In order for a Grand Jury to return an indictment for any criminal charge, the Grand Jury must generally find as follows (remember, the standard is less than what is required at trial):

Grand Larceny in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 155.40): The evidence before the Grand Jury must establish that Hill intentionally stole property (here money) from another and the value of that property exceeded $50,000 but was not greater than $1,000,000. There can be more than one count of this crime depending on the theory of the prosecution. Not only can each individual who lost more then $50,000 be used as a victim, one could argue that the TCF Equipment Finance, Inc., could also be a victim in the event that it actually lost the monies associated with the lines of credit (alternatively, one could argue TCF was a victim of an Attempted Second Degree Grand Larceny). Further, the individual losses could potentially be aggregated into a sole count based on the common scheme, but where there are multiple victims this aggregation is usually associated with Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. As a result of these different theories, it is likely Hill will face multiple counts of New York Penal Law 155.40.

Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 155.35): At a minimum, the two individuals who were defrauded of $65,000 (according to the press release the monies given by the landlord and a friend were $35,000 and $30,000 respectively), could be the basis of a Third Degree Grand Larceny charge. This crime occurs where a theft is greater than $3,000, but not more than $50,000. Just like first Degree Grand Larceny, it is possible for aggregation whereby the crimes would be added up to a greater offense.

First Degree Identity Theft (New York Penal Law 190.80): If you use another person's personal identifying information (name, date of birth, social security number, account number, etc.) while presenting yourself as that person and you obtain services, property or other items in the amount that aggregates $2,000 or more, you are guilty of this crime. If you perpetrate the same actions without obtaining $2,000 or more and you do so while committing another "D" felony offense, you are also guilty of Identity Theft in the First Degree. Here, where the physicians' information was used to open lines of credit in the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars, one subsection of this crime has like been committed. Further, where Forgery was committed in the completion of this crime (such as filling out paperwork with a bank purporting to be from a physician, the "D" felony theory has also been violated.

Forgery in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 170.10): Prosecutors will be able to establish Second Degree Forgery if they can establish that Hill, with the intent to defraud, completed or even partially filled out a written instrument, such as a loan application, which gave him certain rights to access property or money. Certainly there may be other written instruments that fall into this category, but what should be of great concern is that each time this crime is committed, meaning each falsely completed or drafted written instrument, a new separate offense has occurred.

Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree (New York Penal Law 190.65): The least serious felony of all those listed, but nonetheless a serious crime, Hill committed First Degree Scheme to Defraud occurs if he engaged in an ongoing course of conduct with the purpose of defrauding at least one person false pretenses or promises out of $1,000 or more. Again, assuming prosecutors have the evidence to support the claims in their press release, the dollar amount, nature of the fraud and number of people seems to clearly violated New York Penal Law 190.65.

The above crimes and charges are some of the likely offenses that Hill will face (the Queens County DA's Office will ultimately determine charges they wish to present to a Grand Jury). As noted, the theories of the prosecution, aggregation possibilities and available evidence may alter subsections of crimes or bring about other offenses not addressed here. Regardless, because there is no doubt that at least a "C" felony level offense (Second Degree Grand Larceny) is a viable crime ("viable" does not mean Hill can't defend himself or prosecutor can prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt), Hill will face at least as much as five to fifteen years in prison if he does not have a prior felony and even seven and one half to fifteen years in prison if he is a predicate felon. Although the other crimes mentioned here are lesser offenses, they too are felonies with potential state prison sentences.

To learn more about the specific crimes mentioned or other potential offenses, the links above as well as CrottySaland.Com and NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com have relevant, thorough and non-technical analysis of a great number of theft, fraud and white collar crimes. Further reading is available on our blogs linked below where legal decisions impacting New York's criminal statutes are also reviewed.

Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors. The New York Grand Larceny lawyers and criminal defense attorneys at Crotty Saland PC represent clients throughout the New York City region.

Arrests in New York for theft crimes such as Grand Larceny, Scheme to Defraud, Criminal Possession of Stolen Property and Criminal Tax Fraud are bad enough. However, New York Grand Larceny lawyers and theft attorneys have greater concerns well beyond an arrest. Certainly, an arrest for Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (New York Penal Law 155.35) or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Second Degree (New York Penal Law 165.52) is far from enviable and is absolutely terrifying for the accused and his or her family, but an indictment takes these concerns to a much higher level.

Without any context, the mere assertion that an indictment is more concerning than the initial arrest is often lost on an accused. However, if you take little away from this blog entry remember that an indictment is something that an accused should always seek to avoid. This blog entry will briefly address what it practically means to be indicted on a New York larceny crime while supplying some basic information about New York Grand Juries.

Working conversely from the paragraph above, before one deals with indictments in New York State, once must first deal with the Grand Jury. In non legal terms, a New York Grand Jury is made up of roughly a couple dozen people. These individuals sit for a term or period of time where they hear multiple cases. In the Grand Jury room a prosecutor asks direct questions of a witness about a particular crime. When that witness is done speaking, Grand Jurors can ask questions through a prosecutor who determines first whether those questions are relevant. While issues of probable cause are generally not addressed, substantive evidentary questions may be asked. Whatever evidence is presented to a New York Grand Jury, it is much more brief than that presented at a trial. In fact, the burden of proof is not the trial standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but more along the line of reasonable cause to believe a particular felony was committed.

Although a Grand Jury is a secret proceeding (Grand Jurors can even make a determination before there is an arrest), an accused does have the right to testify before that body. When doing so, however, the accused will have to waive certain rights of self incrimination. Further, an accused's attorney will be present before the Grand Jury, but he or she cannot object or ask questions. Witness and evidence can be submitted to a prosecutor before hand and a Grand Jury can ask to hear or see evidence beyond what a prosecutor provided, but there is no judge to oversee the actual proceeding in the Grand Jury.

Armed with this information and knowing who/what the Grand Jury is, the next logical question is what is an indictment? If a Grand Jury determines there is enough evidence to reasonably find that a felony was perpetrated, then a "true bill" or indictment is voted. The indictment is filed with the court and briefly sets forth the charges the accused will face. These charges can contain misdemeanors, but must contain at least one felony. Remember, the standard is lower than at trial and much more brief. Hence the old saying, "a Grand Jury can indict a ham sandwich."

Practically speaking, once an accused is indicted, prosecutors can move forward on felony charges. At this post indictment juncture, a Supreme Court or County Court Judge will preside over the case that was previously overseen by either a Criminal Court Judge or Local / Municipal Court Judge. Additionally, where threats of state prison may have been made pre-indictment, those threats become a potential reality. Therefore, if you were facing an E, D, C or B felony (whether it is a white collar theft offense or a more violent crime), once the the indictment is filed you can face up to four, seven, fifteen and twenty-five years in prison respectively.

Without an indictment (barring a Superior Court Information agreement), you cannot be prosecuted for a felony. To be clear, while you may face felony arrest charges, without an indictment New York Assistant District Attorneys will be unable to move forward on felony crimes. In fact, barring some procedural issues, if prosecutors do not obtain an indictment within six months of your arrest then the felony case against you must be dismissed.

Only a very brief analysis, to better understand the arrest and indictment process in a New York Grand Larceny case, either review the arrest process section of CrottySaland.Com or review this blog and the NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com website. Further information on countless theft, property, and violent crimes is readily available as well.

Founded by two former Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys, Crotty Saland PC is a New York criminal defense firm. Our New York Grand Larceny lawyers represent clients in theft crimes throughout the New York City region.

While it is sometimes fairly easy for prosecutors to establish the crime of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property after a defendant admits to knowing the property is stolen or the defendant is observed actually stealing the property, not all arrests and indictments in New York for Criminal Possession of Stolen Property are that clear. Instead, some Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property cases defended by criminal defense attorneys are allegations that are based more on circumstantial evidence or presumptions found in the New York Penal Law. Prosecutors in New York often even ask jurors and judges to rely on their common sense when determining if a crime has been committed (who would have thought that?!?!). In the realm of New York arrests involving Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, a criminal lawyer needs to be ready for anything.

In People v. Bester, 163 A.D.2d 873 (4th Dept. 1990), a defendant was arrested for violating New York Penal Law 165.50. Prosecutors were required to prove Third Degree Criminal Possession of Stolen Property by establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed property with the intent to benefit himself and the property was worth more than $3,000 but not more than $50,000. There, the defendant argued that prosecutors failed to establish the defendant's knowledge that he knew the property was stolen. Bester claimed that he purchased a properly packaged fibergastroscope (a medical device) from a pawn broker for $20 without any knowledge it was stolen.

Assuming the above was true, the evidence at trial also established that the defendant purchased the item one day after it was stolen. More problematic, Bester's purchase price tipped the scales. Bester paid $20 for medical equipment valued at approximately $12,000. Although the Court did not comment much further, the Court noted that the medical equipment was sophisticated. I think it is fair to say that it seemed more than reasonable that if one paid $20 for an item valued in excess of $10,000, it may be fair to conclude the one knew the item was stolen (subject to other evidence).

While Bester demonstrates an extreme example, what about arrests for Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in New York that involve cars or other vehicles? In People v. Arnold, 194 A.D.2d 798 (2nd Dept. 1993), the defendant was arrested driving a stolen vehicle. Like Bester, Arnold was charged with Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Third Degree pursuant to NY PL 165.50. In Arnold, there was no apparent damage to the vehicle (broken window, tampered ignition, etc.) to indicate the card had been stolen. Further, the defendant's use and conduct with the car did not corroborate any criminal knowledge (he didn't ditch the car or speed away when approached by the police). As a result, the Court came to a different conclusion than their colleagues in Bester and dismissed the case.

The above two examples demonstrate some of the factors that may come into play when prosecutors attempt to prove the criminal case against you beyond a reasonable doubt. Are these all the factors? Certainly not. Would other factors, such as an admission, alter an outcome? That is certainly possible as well. Remember, each case may share some traits with another involving the same crime, but every case is unique. Whether these cases or the principles and issues addressed in them are helpful in your particular arrest for Criminal Possession of Stolen Property is something to discuss with your own criminal attorney.

To learn about the degrees of New York Criminal Possession of Stolen Property and the statutes, legal decisions and cases that constitute these crimes, review the links above or the content at CrottySaland.Com and NewYorkTheftAndLarcenyLawyers.Com linked below.

Crotty Saland PC, a New York theft and larceny criminal defense firm, represents clients in Grand Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property investigations, arrests, indictments and trials in New York City and the suburban region. The two founding New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC both served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office.