New York Theft and Larceny Lawyers Blog

Published on: November 30, 2015

When Can NY Prosecutors Aggregate and Combine Separate Thefts to Increase a Petit Larceny to a Grand Larceny

The difference between a felony larceny arrest when compared to a misdemeanor larceny crime in New York is significant. After all, felonies are crimes that are more likely to negatively impact professional licenses, immigration statuses, and other privileges and rights. Further a Grand Larceny conviction, as opposed to a Petit Larceny conviction, carries a greater potential term of incarceration. In New York, for example, a PL 155.25 (Petit Larceny) conviction is punishable by up to one year in jail while a PL 155.30 (Fourth Degree Grand Larceny) or PL 155.35 (Third Degree Grand Larceny) conviction is punishable by up to four years and seven years in a New York State prison respectively. Other Grand Larceny crimes such as Second or First Degree Grand Larceny are punishable by even greater years of incarceration.

What the above information highlights is the fact that should you face an arrest or indictment for a larceny crime in New York, one of the critical questions you should ask is whether or not the dollar amount of the theft can be decreased thereby lowering the degree of the crime. In concrete terms, can a Third Degree Grand Larceny be reduced to a Fourth Degree Grand Larceny or a Fourth Degree Grand Larceny be knocked down to a Petit Larceny? The following blog entry will analyze the aggregation scenario where crimes can be increased or enhanced and one worthy of discussing with your own criminal lawyer in the event it is on point with your case.

Published on: November 19, 2015

Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle: What Actions will give Rise to Violating NY PL 165.05

By Jeremy Saland

New York theft crimes come in a variety of offenses from misdemeanor to felony and non-violent to violent. Some crimes may be punishable by up to one year in prison while others can land you in prison for as long as twenty five years. When that crime involves a vehicle theft, the value of the car usually has a direct impact on the crime. Some thefts are automatically felonies such as New York Penal Law 155.30(8). This offense, Fourth Degree Grand Larceny, makes it a felony to steal a vehicle valued in excess of $100. However, if the car is worth more than $3,000 or $50,000, the crime would be kicked up to New York Penal Law 155.35 or 155.40 respectively. These offenses carry even greater sentences of imprisonment beyond the four years associated with PL 155.30(8), aka, Grand Theft Auto.

This blog entry will deal not with the actual theft of a car, truck or SUV in New York, but the unauthorized use of the same and what conduct rises to the level of violating NY PL 165.05, Third Degree Unauthorized Use of a Vehicle.

Published on: November 14, 2015

Temporary Use or Permanently Deprive: Understanding Larceny in a New York Stolen Property and Theft Case

By Jeremy Saland

Whether you are charged with a misdemeanor Petit Larceny, New York Penal Law 155.25, or a more serious felony including Grand Larceny in the Fourth, Third or even greater degree, New York Penal Law 155.30 and 155.35 respectively, there are certain common elements that prosecutors must establish beyond a reasonable doubt. While a conviction for PL 155.25 may “only” carry a sentence of up to one year in jail where as a conviction for PL 155.30 or PL 155.35 may be punishable by as great as four or seven years respectively, each arrest stemming from an Article 155 allegation requires the same degree of attention. The hurdle of legal sufficiency must always be overcome by prosecutors and challenged by your criminal defense attorney. This blog entry will address one of those elements or mandatory traits of a viable PL 155.25, PL 155.30, PL 155.35, PL 155.40 or PL 155.42 arrest. That is, it is it enough for a District Attorney to establish your intent to temporarily use another’s property or must they establish your intent to permanently deprive an owner of the same?

Published on: November 10, 2015

Shoplifting Arrests and Acting in Concert: What Type of Nexus is Needed Between Two People to Establish a PL 155.25 Crime

By Jeremy Saland

If there is such a “good” in crimes and prosecutions, arrests and accusations for shoplifting often result in the issuance of a Desk Appearance Ticket (DAT) in lieu of a person being processed through Central Booking. The “bad,” however, is that shoplifting arrests for the crimes of Petit Larceny, New York Penal Law 155.25, and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree, New York Penal Law 165.40, are so routine that prosecutors, judges and even many inexperienced criminal defense attorneys do not blink an eye when examining an accusatory information to determine its viability and sufficiency. That is not to say these people are lazy by any means, but fatigue of seeing the same boilerplate language leads to poor results. Fortunately for one defendant, the examination of the complaint against her led to a judge dismissing the charges of Petit Larceny after the court determined there was no nexus between her actions and that of an unapprehended other individual who attempted to leave the store with stolen property. This blog entry will address the court’s decision and look at the overall value and importance of the ruling in the realm of arrests for PL 155.25 and PL 165.40.

Published on: August 25, 2015

The Ashley Madison Hack and Exposure to Extortion and Blackmail: Protecting Yourself and Understanding the Criminal Law

By Jeremy Saland

By now everyone who provided a credit card to Ashley Madison, a real name or an address knows that hackers have exposed their personal information. Sure, what the hackers did was wrong and illegal, but there is little to nothing anyone one of us can do about that. Instead, the issue is now how do you protect yourself from would be fraudsters and criminals who have sifted through the information posted online? What if one of these individuals contacts you? Demands money? Threatens you? Is there any recourse? What, if any, crimes have been committed? Does it matter that the information is arguably public since it has been posted? This blog entry will attempt to answer some of these questions from the perspective of the New York Penal Law. Federal violations will be discussed at a later time.

Published on: March 16, 2015

Legal Sufficiency & the Minimum Requirements of a NY PL 155.25 or NY PL 165.40 Case

By Jeremy Saland

Petit Larceny, New York Penal Law 155.25, is one of the most common theft crimes charged in New York, prosecuted by Assistant District Attorneys, and defended by New York criminal lawyers. Like its sister offense of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree, New York Penal Law 165.40, this misdemeanor “shoplifting” crime is one that prosecutors can very easily draft in an accusatory instrument (called a criminal court complaint or information). In fact, in New York City’s boroughs of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, there is fairly boilerplate language that is found in most complaints. Of grave concern to criminal defense attorneys, however, is whether or not the boilerplate language that is plugged into these complaints is legally sufficient and not conlusory (are there enough factual allegations and not mere conclusory statements). Whether an accused finds himself or herself before a judge during an arraignment by way of Desk Appearance Ticket (commonly called a DAT or Appearance Ticket) or after spending 24 hours in the infamous Tombs should the information be legally insufficient an attorney can file a motion for dismissal.

Published on: January 21, 2015

Client Charged with Embezzlement in Excess of $100,000 Avoids Incarceration and Probation: Second Degree Grand Larceny Reduced

By Jeremy Saland

Embezzlement cases in New York are often some of the most difficult crimes to defend for Grand Larceny lawyers and Embezzlement defense attorneys. Yes, every case is different, but Grand Larceny by Embezzlement often involves a “smoking gun” of a paper trail. In these cases, money is transferred out of an employer’s account and into the account of an accused. As a New York City and greater New York criminal defense attorney, it no longer surprises me to see people make these boneheaded and easily traceable transactions. Even worse, from a criminal defense perspective, as much as an accused may want to apologize for the infraction, admitting the indiscretion to the police, a detective or employer makes any criminal case that much stronger. From a personal and “human” side, we can all understand that people make mistakes and making a victim whole is what we should endeavor to do, but when you are accused of a crime you should always think things through before making any statement to any party.

Published on: January 11, 2015

Is a Verdict Repugnant if a Defendant is Guilty of Grand Larceny but Not Guilty of Identity Theft and Using Forged Credit Cards to Complete the Theft

By Jeremy Saland

No matter how long your criminal defense lawyer or criminal defense attorney has practiced in the courts of New York, every criminal trial he or she faces is unique and can have complex legal issues. During a criminal trial a defendant may be charged with multiple crimes and the jury may find the defendants guilty of, all, none or an assortment of crimes charges but not all of them. After the verdict is issued, a criminal defense attorney can argue that the verdict should be overturned for various reasons. Two potential ways your criminal lawyer can challenge a verdict is if the verdict is legally repugnant or legally insufficient.

A jury verdict is legally repugnant if the verdict is inherently inconsistent when viewed in light of the elements of each crime as charged to the jury. The repugnancy claim can be a useful legal tool when the jury verdict is inconsistent with the elements of the crime and should be used to overturn inherently inconsistent verdicts. People v. Forde illuminates some of the issues that can arise when a legal repugnancy or a legal sufficiency claim is made.

Published on: January 4, 2015

Credit Card Theft & Fraud in New York: Does the NY Penal Law Require Possession of Actual Credit Card to Establish Felony Grand Larceny or Criminal Possession of Stolen Property

By Jeremy Saland

Crimes involving the theft and wrongful use of credit cards and debit cards are the types of offenses that seem to escalate each year. Certainly, the ease by which one can steal or use a stolen credit card is undeniable. While many times it is one’s intent to steal a credit or debit card, it is not atypical for an alleged thief to be arrested for stealing a wallet, purse or pocket book and he or she is not only charged with a misdemeanor, but a felony as well. The reason for this is because in the State of New York from New York City (NYC) to the suburbs of Westchester County and well beyond, it is a violation of New York Penal Law 155.30(4), Fourth Degree Grand Larceny, New York Penal Law 165.45(2), Fourth Degree Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, to merely steal or possess a stolen credit card. You need not know that when you took a person’s bag from a bar in Manhattan or hotel in Brooklyn that the bag contained a credit card. Punishable by up to four years in prison, any criminal lawyer or larceny defense attorney will certainly explain that the consequences are grave upon arrest or conviction of PL 155.30 or PL 165.45.

With the brief fundamentals behind us, in the eyes of the law, does it make a difference if you possess the actual credit card as opposed to merely using the numbers for the account? In other words, for a judge or jury to find you guilty of a credit card or debit card crime as set forth in Grand Larceny in the Fourth Degree or Criminal Possession of the Fourth Degree, must you actually possess or steal that card?

Published on: August 25, 2014

New York Grand Larceny and Stolen Property Felonies: Can Value of Goods and Property be Established at Trial without Expert Testimony

By Jeremy Saland

Every element of every crime is equally important. Irrespective of the charge you face, prosecutors in New York City, Westchester County or anywhere else in the State of New York must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. This is no different if you you are charged with Grand Larceny as codified in Article 150 of the New York Penal Law or a violent offense of Assault as codified in Article 120 of the New York Penal Law. Addressing the former offense of Grand Larceny, one of the elements that an Assistant District Attorney must prove to a jury or a judge at trial is that the value of the alleged property you allegedly stole exceeds either $1,000.00, $3,000.00, $50,000.00 or $1,000,000.00. Simply, value is an essential element of any Grand Larceny crime that your criminal lawyer or criminal defense attorney will vigorously challenge. If a judge or jury agrees with you, as opposed to the prosecutor, then either the trial will end in an acquittal or a conviction for a lesser criminal offense. Where a case involves cash or money, your attorney’s task may be quite difficult, but how is value assessed (or challenged) when the value of the property in question is not easily quantified?