In one recent Long Island case, People v. J.S., the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office sought to keep a young person in the adult criminal justice system due to that child’s already extensive contacts with the law enforcement and the courts. In that case, the teenager was charged as an Adolescent Offender, meaning that they were either 16 or 17 years of age. The defendant was charged with Robbery, Burglary, and other charges. Prosecutors argued against removing the case to Family Court citing “extraordinary circumstances,” stating that this person had already been given several chances to take advantage of various services and alternatives to criminal prosecution and failed to follow through. Further, his high-risk and dangerous behaviors had only escalated.

In order to meet the legal threshold under New York’s Raise the Age law, prosecutors were required to establish “extraordinary circumstances,” which they attempted to meet by relying on this young person’s prior contacts with the criminal justice system including a prior Youthful Offender adjudication (one of the alternatives to a criminal conviction that existed prior to the Raise the Age law, and which still exists). Prosecutors further argued as a matter of public policy that allowing removal to Family Court under these circumstances would be against the purpose and intent of New York’s Raise the Age law. In opposition, the defendant’s attorney argued that “extraordinary circumstances” did not exist in that this teenager’s criminal history alone did not serve as a basis for such, especially where there was nothing particularly unusual or heinous about the prior offenses or arrests.

While the judge presiding over the case was certainly concerned about the young man’s already extensive contacts with the police and criminal justice system, the Court did find that there were mitigating circumstances in favor of sending the case to Family Court and out of the adult criminal justice system. The judge specifically found that the adolescent would not benefit from the heightened services.

These heightened services should certainly be a focal point for any young person who finds themselves charged with a theft-related offense, as well as any criminal defense attorney or family of the young person who has been charged with Robbery, or even a less serious theft-related crime such as Petit Larceny. Avoiding criminal prosecution by the District Attorney’s Office in the adult criminal court is of paramount importance as it can have long-lasting effects, even where a criminal conviction is ultimately avoided. Family Court is generally much better equipped to help young people find their way out of what can quickly become a downward spiral.

To learn more about theft cases, and Raise the Age legislation, follow the provided links.

Saland Law PC is a New York theft, Robbery, Larceny, and Adolescent Offender criminal defense law firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors.

One such seminal case was People v. Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103 (1986), decided by the Court of Appeals, New York’s highest court. As a preliminary matter, and relevant to this case, the Penal Law defines a larceny, or “stealing property,” as basically when a person has the intent to deprive another of the property and he or she wrongfully takes, obtains, or withholds that property. Deprive, under the law, means to withhold the property either permanently, for an extended period of time, or, critically to White Collar cases, under such circumstances that the major portion of its economic value or benefit is lost.

The Court of Appeals in Jennings was called upon to focus on this last definition of “deprive” in deciding whether the defendant, Sentry, a corporation that picks up and transports large amounts of money for banks, had deprived Chemical Bank of the economic value of the money it was transporting by investing that money for short periods of time, usually a couple of days, and keeping the profits of those short term investments. This kind of a scenario may seem difficult for the average person to relate to, but this analysis of “intent” applies just as much to the person who walked into the Duane Reade and took something off the shelf as it does to a huge international corporation.

In Jennings, Chemical Bank and Sentry entered into an agreement under which Sentry would pick up “bulk deposits” from Chemical’s offices, count the money, and deliver it within 72 hours to Chemical’s account at the Federal Reserve Bank. During this 72 hour period, Sentry would make short term, profitable investments. The District Attorney argued that this amounted to appropriating a portion of the economic benefit, and that those actions demonstrated an intent to deprive Chemical Bank of the “economic value or benefit” of the money itself – the interest that the money was capable of generating.

The Court disagreed with this assessment of the situation, and held that these discrete, short term investments in and of themselves did not show that Sentry had the intent to use Chemical Bank’s money to extract the major economic value or benefit of the money, even though this was an unauthorized use of the property. In essence, there was no “larcenous intent” or intent to steal in that scenario.

You may ask yourself, if they invest this money, make it back, and then deposit what they made back, hasn’t Sentry permanently deprived Chemical Bank of the actual money that was given to them. While this is literally true, the Court of Appeals held that money is interchangeable with other money, and it doesn’t matter if the literal same bills were later deposited in Chemical’s account or not. You may also ask yourself, what if they lost the money when they invested it, or what if they lost it in the various transfers that took place to make the investments and returns happen? This, the Court held, was far to speculative to establish a criminal offense through this kind of “risk of loss” analysis.

At the end of the day, we all assess people’s thoughts and intent primarily through their actions. Those actions are not always easy to confidently ascertain, whether it’s a person walking into a Duane Reade, taking something off the shelf, and putting it in their pocket, or a corporation investing a bank’s money, returning it a few days later, and keeping the profits. The same holds true for you, if you are accused of Embezzlement or some other fraud type allegation involving larceny. No matter the allegation it is critical that you and your attorney examine the evidence to ascertain your best defense whether it is one based in law, fact, mitigation or a combination of any of these strategies.

To learn more about White Collar crimes including larceny crimes and theft charges, follow the provided links.

Saland Law PC is a New York larceny, theft and criminal defense law firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors.

Drafted by the legislature into Penal Law 155.05(1), to violate either misdemeanor Petit Larceny or any degree of felony Grand Larceny, you must have the intent to deprive another person of his or her property or appropriate the same for yourself or another party. Not only must you have this goal when taking the property, but you in fact must do so successfully and wrongfully.

Further outlined in Penal Law 155.00(3) and 155.00(4) respectively, the code defines both “deprive” and “appropriate”. Factors considered by judges tasked with examining the sufficiency of these offenses must determine whether, for example, the property was permanently withheld, kept for such a long time frame that a major portion of its economic value was sabotaged or disposed of in a manner that likely left the owner without the ability to secure it. Alternatively, these same judges must ascertain if the party that took the object controlled the same to a sufficient degree or disposed of it to his or her benefit. When it comes to stolen property, the District Attorney must prove that an accused possessed the property knowing that it was stolen and with the intent to benefit himself or prevent its recovery by the rightful owner.

Confusing? Usually not at all when applied to every day circumstances coupled with common sense. However, because criminal justice is anything but routine, sometimes prosecutors push the proverbial envelope in the name of subjective justice thereby raising legal flags. One recent example is found in People v. Lewis, Slip Op. 50900 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 2019). There, an undercover officer attempted to buy marijuana and cocaine in what the NYPD calls a “buy and bust”. In these stings, drugs are purchased with pre-recorded or marked money and the seller is then arrested. Despite their plans, however, after giving Lewis $20 of PRBM (pre-recorded buy money), Lewis failed to return despite the alleged agreement that he would return with the weed and controlled substances. In the accusatory instrument the officer not only mentioned the conversation regarding the drug purchase, PRBM, and his failure to return with the goods, but the recovery of the PRBM from the defendant’s person.

Deciding that the allegations failed to have legal muster and this deficiency required dismissal, the Court first found the language describing the agreement that Lewis use the $20 to buy marijuana and cocaine lacking. Not that such an agreement could never raise to the level of a theft, the Court determined further details and description was necessary. Digging deeper, the Court further found that the accusatory instrument failed to established and sufficiently reflect that the undercover police officer was the owner or custodian of the property, the statutory elements of “deprive” and “appropriate,” the duration of the incident, and how long the defendant was gone with the money. Without these factual allegations the Court could not make a reasonable inference as to Lewis’ intent nor that he wrongfully took / withheld the PRBM from the police. Due to these factual shortcomings, the Court dismissed both PL 155.25 and PL 165.40.

It seems likely and reasonably that with a little more clarity and detail, assuming it existed and satisfied the elementary mandates, the prosecution could have prevailed. In fact, in a similar situation, they did just that after prosecutors filled in the numerous blanks that were left empty in Lewis. See. People v. Kinfe, 52 Misc 3d 1217(A), 43 N.Y.S.3d 768 (N.Y.Crim.Ct. 2016).

To learn more about the crimes codified in New York Penal Law Article 155 and 165, review the provided links.

Saland Law PC, a New York City criminal defense firm founded by two former Manhattan Assistant District Attorneys, represents those accused of these and other offenses in NYC, the Hudson Valley and throughout the state.

In People v. Anderson, 2787-1018, the court was tasked to determine whether or not a particular offense committed while the perpetrator was outside New York could properly be brought in Queens County and, therefore, New York had jurisdiction over the defendant. One of the easiest means to reach this conclusion was to ascertain, as the Court did here, whether or not a particular criminal offense is what is referred to as a “result offense.” Among other definitions, CPL 20.20 identifies a result offense as one where a specific consequence of the criminal action is itself an element of the crime.  Common examples of results-based offenses are ones aimed at criminalizing fraud and the defrauding of other persons such the varying degrees of Identity Theft including Penal Law 190.78, 190.79 and 190.80. These crimes can be distinguished from other offenses such as Grand Larceny. While there may be some other nexus to New York, there is no specific element of Grand Larceny involving the defrauding of a victim. Instead the criminal statute focuses exclusively on the conduct of the perpetrator.

In People v. Anderson, the defendant was in New Jersey when the alleged conduct happened. The victim was in Queens County, New York. The defendant allegedly engaged in fraudulent activity, including Identity Theft, resulting in a financial loss to the victim of over $2,000. It is important to note that the Grand Jury minutes reviewed by the Court also included sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant knew that the victim resided in New York, and specifically in Queens County. Ultimately, the Court, in its decision, distinguished result-based offenses like Identity Theft, and non-result offenses like Grand Larceny. As such, the Court determined that dismissal of the Grand Larceny counts was appropriate, while dismissal of the Identity Theft and Criminal Impersonation was denied. Forgery counts, also charged in the indictment, would have otherwise survived dismissal as result offenses but for the fact that prosecutors improperly instructed the Grand Jury.

In non-legal terms, the Court’s decision demonstrated that even if all of the conduct that an accused engages in happens outside of New York, when the harm and result of that conduct occurs within the borders of this state, and within a particular county and jurisdiction, as long as that offense is one where that particular result is an element of the offense, District Attorneys in New York will be able to exercise jurisdiction over that out of state individual and over the particular charges. Without this principle being firmly established, law enforcement would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce and prosecute crimes committed against residents within the state where an alleged perpetrator conducted his or her legal infractions elsewhere.

To learn more about the crimes referenced above or related issues of criminal procedure, follow the links or contact the defense attorneys and former Manhattan prosecutors at Saland Law PC.

Before addressing the legal definitions of “deprive” and “appropriate,” let’s take a moment to set the stage to better, and unfortunately so, visualize the necessity of one of these elements in any larceny related crime. In a decision dated September 3, 2019, a Queens County Supreme Court Judge dismissed one count of Fourth Degree Grand Larceny, Penal Law 155.30(5), despite some fairly heinous accusations. In People v. Rodriguez, the evidence before the Grand Jury established that that the defendant called the victim over to his car where he was seated before asking the complainant for directions to a hospital (generally considered a reasonable inquiry). Upon graciously offering assistance to a motorist in need, the victim quickly regretted her goodwill. Although it is difficult to comprehend how long it took this play to develop, the defendant allegedly took the complainant’s phone, put it on his lap under a towel, and then proceeded to ejaculate on the phone case (yes, you read that correctly). Graciously, the defendant then gave the phone, with the case still attached, back to the victim. Likely a bit disturbed if not vilely ill, the complainant tossed the phone case away after questioning why she didn’t tell the defendant to use Ways or Google Maps.

Perhaps because the incident was so “reprehensible,” as the Court stated it in its decision, the Queens County District Attorney’s Office sought and obtained an indictment for “stealing” the phone directly from the hand of the complainant, thus making the offense a felony. A little inside baseball, Penal Law 155.30(4), the “pickpocket” statute, elevates a misdemeanor to a felony whenever property is taken from another person irrespective of its value. Unfortunately for prosecutors, the Court deemed the crime to be an overreach. The District Attorney did not establish that the defendant deprived or permanently withheld the property or did so for an extended period of time thereby diminishing the economic value of the cell phone case. Further, the People did not prove the defendant disposed of the property in manner that made it likely to be unrecoverable by the owner. Similarly, the evidence did not establish that the defendant appropriated the cell phone case to himself permanently or for such an extended period of time as to acquire the major portion of its economic value or benefit.

Its clear that the prosecution’s theory was that the defendant, through his actions, withheld the phone case and deprived the victim of the major portion of its economic value or the benefit of owning the phone case even if the Court disagreed. While this may seem like a strange or tortured line of reasoning, it’s certainly plausible on its face that taking someone’s property and subjecting it to that kind of romance effectively deprives the victim of that property even if not literally so. However, the Court, in its decision, looked to the defendant’s intent as manifested through his actual actions.  In so doing, the Court reasoned that the defendant’s behavior did not sufficiently establish a larcenous intent, desire to deprive the complainant of her property, or an intent to steal property from another person. Instead, it appeared the defendant’s actions were motivated by sexual gratification – and possibly an insatiable appetite for Apple’s newest technology.

Make no mistake. The defendant behaved in a depraved and sick manner and should be punished accordingly. Nonetheless, the District Attorney did not establish the elements of either “deprive” or “appropriate.” While it may be tempting for a prosecutor to stretch the law and bring the most serious and severe charges possible in the hopes that they will be able to force through the greatest possible consequences for particular defendant, and some might applaud them for doing so, law enforcement must still adhere to the letter of the law.

To learn more about any of New York White Collar Crime or any larceny related crimes, follow the provided links or go directly to New-York-Lawyers.org.

Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, Saland Law PC is a New York criminal defense firm representing clients throughout the State and the New York City and Hudson Valley regions.

As recently as July of this year, the SEC announced a $29.8 million settlement with Credit Suisse relating to allegations that the bank had hired family and friends of foreign officials as a favor or benefit for receiving banking and other sources of business. The settlement would likely have been even higher if it weren’t for the fact that Credit Suisse had already paid $47 million in fines for the same exact conduct in a criminal prosecution brought by the DOJ. Similarly, in April of this year, another company entered into a settlement for more than $143 million in connection with charges under the FCPA. JP Morgan also settled similar charges for $264.4 million as recently as 2016 for criminal and regulatory penalties for very similar alleged conduct – giving jobs to family and friends of foreign government officials. In the same year, Qualcomm also settled comparable allegations for $7.5 million.

Financial firms, banks and executives in the U.S. can help to protect themselves from such allegations by making sure that all applicants for positions, especially those with any connection to foreign government officials and those with prior criminal convictions, go through the standard hiring process and that they are thoroughly qualified for the offered position. Under the FCPA, however, that is not enough for banks and financial services companies. They are required to proactively identify “Politically Exposed Persons” and those who might be potentially involved or susceptible to corruption of this nature.

Critically, compliance with the FCPA ultimately falls on the executives of a firm, particularly Human Resources and employment attorneys within the organization. This includes not only the screening and assessment practices noted above, but also ongoing monitoring and assessment of potential sources of violations of the FCPA within the organization. This includes an expectation by the SEC, Department of Justice, and other enforcement agencies on ongoing training, oversight, regular employee reviews, well-defined and established procedures for employee discipline, and appropriate engagement in internal investigations.

Internal investigations, which are expected as part of compliance with the FCPA and other regulations and laws having to do with the financial sector, are ubiquitous, complex and expensive. Avoiding any possibility of impropriety, or the mere appearance of impropriety, in how internal investigations are conducted can be difficult. For example, a financial firm or bank itself would not conduct the investigation itself for obvious conflicts of interest. It may not even be advisable for an outside firm with an strong existing relationship with the company to conduct such an investigation, not only for conflicts and appearances, but also for that law firm’s ability to continue representing the bank in other matters. All of these decisions and practices tie directly in to executives’ potential responsibility under the FCPA.

Saland Law PC is a New York criminal law firm founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors.

One of the most important concerns for the accused and his or her criminal defense attorney is whether to plead guilty to a particular charge or a reduced offense being offered by a prosecutor, Specifically, what effect does such a plea have on the defendant’s future employment, licensure or certification. Is there a potential issue looming on a U4, with FDIC or FINRA regulations, or some other nebulous “fraud” concern? For instance, a person with no prior criminal record or convictions who now pleads guilty to a Petit Larceny, PL 155.25, may find themselves forever unable to work in a broker-dealer capacity even with countless “series” under his or her belt. Simply, a conviction, and even a mere arrest, may have a huge and irreversibly negative impact on that person’s life. While it is all relative, another way to see this issue is if instead of the financial sector, you worked as a commercial truck driver. While a fraud offense such as Second Degree Grand Larceny, First Degree Falsifying Business Records or Forgery would certainly be impactful, it would be less so than a DWI under VTL 1192.  At bottom, all crimes of the same class may be equal, but the direct and collateral consequences may differ depending on the careers, licenses, and training of the convicted.

As briefly noted, financial sector professionals often have unique reporting requirements and consequences upon arrest and conviction should the latter occur. Financial sector professionals who are subject to U4 disclosure requirements are mandate to not only disclose criminal convictions, but even criminal charges related to honesty or investing. This means that while a plea down to Disorderly Conduct, PL 240.20, from a Petit Larceny might be fine for most, that same disposition might, or might not, be disastrous for the financial professional who passed the Series 3, Series 6 or Series 7 exam. This can drastically change the calculus that goes into defense strategy, negotiations, and case preparation. It is imperative that any defendant in the financial sector as well as his or her defense attorney be keenly aware of these issues from day one.

Not only are the direct consequences of a conviction critical to a financial services professional, such as a statutory 10-year disqualification from working in the securities industry, but reputations are not subject to any timeline of distrust. No one needs to tell you, an accused, that not only can an otherwise minor criminal conviction cause direct and immediate harm through suspensions, but the collateral consequences for a financial services professional can stretch on indefinitely through reputational harm that is difficult to quantify.

While a non-attorney may not appreciate the difference between two types of thefts, you do not have that luxury if you are subject to investigation, arrest or indictment by one or a combination of the New York State Attorney General, a District Attorney’s Office and New York State Tax Department. For example, if you are arrested for committing a “tax fraud act” during a period not to exceed one year and the value of the evaded tax is more than $3,000.00, but no greater than $10,000.00, the felony offense you would likely face is Fourth Degree Criminal Tax Fraud pursuant to Tax Law 1803. A class “E” felony, a conviction for this crime can land you in prison for up to four years. Alternatively, if the dollar amount allegedly evaded is north of $10,000.00 but not more than $50,000.00, then felony rises to the class “D” crime of Third Degree Criminal Tax Fraud, New York Tax Law 1804. As unnerving as all this may be, if prosecutors can prove you committed a Grand Larceny crime, then things can get potentially worse.

Briefly, whenever you steal property valued more than $3,000.00 but topping off at $50,000.00, the chargeable offense is Third Degree Grand Larceny, a class “D” felony. This type of felony has a penalty of up to seven years in prison. What happens, however, if you “merely” commit a “tax fraud act” between $3,000.00 and $10,000.00. If prosecutors can only prove a violation of section 1803, and not a Grand Larceny, then you would only face a maximum exposure of four years in prison (“only” being a relative term) for the tax offense. However, if prosecutors can also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had a “larcenous intent,” then, as reflected in People v. Nelson, 38 A.D.3d 472 (Fist Department 2007), then a judge or jury can find you guilty of both the lesser tax crime and greater theft offense. Obviously, “larcenous intent” in conjunction with a “tax fraud act” can mean as much as up to three more years in prison.

It is worth noting that Nelson did not receive a refund check from the State of New York and instead benefited with tax credits that could be allocated to other personal tax liabilities. Simply, its of no consequence how that benefit was received in terms of “payment” as long as prosecutors can establish the amount and “tax fraud act.”

To better understand both the crime of Criminal Tax Fraud in New York and Grand Larceny, review the provided links.

Saland Law PC is a New York criminal defense firm versed and experienced in Criminal Tax Fraud prosecutions throughout New York City and the greater Hudson Valley area. Both founding attorneys served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office prior to establishing the law practice.

In People v. Buckley, 75 N.Y.2d 843 (1990), the New York State Court of Appeals was tasked with determining when and how an arrest and ultimate conviction for one aggregated felony count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property can stem from multiple smaller crimes that would otherwise make up distinct charges. Prosecutors accused Buckley of, among other things, possessing four radar guns belonging to four different people. After a finding of guilt as to Second Degree Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, Buckley appealed on the ground that “owner” is singular as per the applicable statute and as such, each victim represents one crime. Disagreeing with, and deciding against Buckley, the Court upheld the conviction involving the summed up value and greater degree of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property. The judges found that “…unlike separate and unrelated thefts from different persons, which cannot be combined to form grand larceny (see, People v. Thiel, 26 A.D.2d 897, 274 N.Y.S.2d 417) unless committed pursuant to a single intent and common plan (see, People v. Cox, 286 N.Y. 137, 36 N.E.2d 84; People v. Perlstein, 97 A.D.2d 482, 484, 467 N.Y.S.2d 682), simultaneous possession of stolen property belonging to different persons can be considered one offense and the value of the property aggregated to constitute an aggravated charge of criminal possession of stolen property.”

While it is unlikely that in the midst of a theft or when possessing property illegally one will think of Buckley and related cases, these decisions are nonetheless of critical import to one’s defense and respective defense counsel’s strategy. Whether your arrest involves three or fifteen alleged victims, what may seem to be only a misdemeanor or lower level felony may in fact be something quite more serious. Where thresholds from misdemeanor to felony and from lower felony degrees to higher ones start at in excess of $1,000.00, $3,000.00, $50,000.00 and $1 million, the potential for increased exposure and significant penalties are frighteningly real.

To best understand the criminal degrees and penalties of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, as well as the elements of these offenses, review the links provided herein.

Saland Law PC is a criminal defense law firm representing clients in all theft, fraud and larceny related schemes, investigations, arrests and crimes throughout the City of New York, the counties of the Hudson Valley and many other municipalities throughout the state. Before representing both victims and the accused, Saland Law PC’s founding partners served as Manhattan prosecutors.

The most common scenario involving misdemeanor shoplifting in New York occurs when you are accused of either leaving a store, walking past the cash registers or even being stopped while still inside the establishment after store security believes you are trying to conceal clothes, food or other property. Although not law enforcement, it is common that these security officers believe that they can “arrest” you. While they can lawfully apprehend a perceived shoplifter, it is not uncommon that these employees get unnecessarily “handsy.” Further, and anecdotally, upon your apprehension, store security officers can, and do, lie to you. They often tell their captors that if you admit that you were stealing they will let you go home without police involvement. But, as you likely now know, they call the NYPD or other police agency. Whether they say they are calling a manager or come out and tell you the police are coming, security officers then rifle through your pocket book, purse or backpack and “demand” that you sign a forfeiture letter allowing the business to fine you up to $500. Moreover, security will try to coerce you into signing a trespass notice or affidavit revoking your right to return. All of this occurs while your plea to make a phone call go ignored.

Ultimately, whether you are compliant or not, and for that matter whether you were in fact shoplifting or not, the police, who were already summoned despite representation by store staff, arrive and place you in handcuffs and under arrest. At this point, assuming the value of the property in question is no greater than $1,000.00 and you have a local address, you are fingerprinted, processed at the local precinct by the NYPD, and released with a NYC Desk Appearance Ticket or DAT within about two to five hours. Not a complaint, the DAT reflects a date to appear in court for your arraignment as well as other information. The most critical is the charged offense. Although only there is only room for one charge, the police will generally input PL 155.25 or PL 165.40. Both misdemeanors, PL 155.25 is Petit Larceny and PL 165.40 is Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree. You should be aware that when you arraigned and appear before a judge with your legal counsel it is likely the criminal court complaint will reflect both crimes.

In the event you are accused of stealing in excess of $1,000.00 or $3,000.00, then in lieu of DAT it is likely that the NYPD will process you through Central Booking and charge you with Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree or Grand Larceny in the Third Degree respectively. These felony shoplifting crimes are far more serious and even though the law allows for a DAT for some class “E” felonies, it is routine that those arrested for felony crimes are held to see a judge for as long as 15-24 hours.

While there are countless moving parts to a shoplifting arrest and you may have not had the opportunity to explain your side of the allegation, remember that you have rights and your arrest is not de facto proof of guilt. Whether mitigating your conduct is the best defense to your shoplifting arrest or challenging the evidence and accuracy of the criminal charges is a better strategy, you and your attorney can make that determination and implement the appropriate response.

To learn more about New York shoplifting laws and crimes relating to theft, larceny and criminally possessing stolen property irrespective of its nature or value, review the links provided herein.

A criminal defense firm representing clients in shoplifting arrests – both felony and misdemeanor – in New York City and the Hudson Valley, both founding criminal lawyers served as prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office prior to establishing the law practice.