Key Offenses Classified as Domestic Violence

In New York, acts of domestic violence are prosecuted under specific Penal Law sections, depending on the nature of the offense. Common charges include:

  *   Assault: Causing physical injury to another person.
  *   Menacing: Intentionally placing or attempting to place another person in fear of death or serious physical injury.
  *   Stalking: Engaging in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress or fear.
  *   Harassment: Engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person.
  *   Strangulation: Intentionally impeding the normal breathing or blood circulation of another person by applying pressure to the throat or neck.
  *   Criminal Obstruction of Breathing or Blood Circulation: Similar to strangulation but may involve less force or result in less severe injury.
  *   Criminal Mischief: Damaging or destroying property belonging to another person.
  *   Sexual Offenses: Including sexual abuse, forcible touching, or rape.
  *   Coercion: Compelling or inducing another person to engage in conduct by instilling fear.

These offenses are categorized based on their severity, with corresponding penalties.

Penalties for Domestic Violence Offenses

The penalties for domestic violence offenses in New York City vary depending on the classification of the crime:

  *   Class A Misdemeanors (e.g., Third-Degree Assault, Harassment in the Second Degree):
     *   Up to 1 year in jail.
     *   Fines up to $1,000.
     *   Probation and mandatory counseling or anger management programs.
 
  *   Class E Felonies (e.g., Second-Degree Strangulation):
     *   Up to 4 years in prison.
     *   Fines up to $5,000.
     *   Probation and mandatory counseling.
 
  *   Class D Felonies (e.g., Second-Degree Assault):
     *   Up to 7 years in prison.
     *   Fines up to $5,000.
     *   Probation and mandatory counseling.
 
  *   Class C Felonies (e.g., First-Degree Strangulation):
     *   Up to 15 years in prison.
     *   Fines up to $5,000.
     *   Probation and mandatory counseling.
 
  *   Class B Felonies (e.g., Aggravated Sexual Abuse, Rape in the First Degree, Assault in the First Degree):
     *   Up to 25 years in prison.
     *   Fines up to $5,000.
     *   Probation and mandatory counseling.

In addition to these penalties, individuals convicted of domestic violence offenses may face:

  *   Protective Orders: Courts may issue orders of protection to prevent further contact between the offender and the victim. This can also result in defendants being prohibited from returning to their own homes or communicating with family members (such as children) while the charges are pending.
  *   Firearm Restrictions: Convicted individuals may be prohibited from possessing firearms.
  *   Employment Consequences: A criminal conviction can impact current employment and future job prospects.
  *   Immigration Consequences: Non-citizens may face deportation or difficulty obtaining citizenship.

Recent Legislative Developments

New York State has enacted several laws to address domestic violence more effectively:

  *   Melanie’s Law: Signed into law in November 2024, this legislation allows courts to issue orders of protection for all family members of domestic violence victims, regardless of their age. This law was prompted by the tragic murder of Melanie Chianese by her mother’s abusive ex-boyfriend in 2022. Previously, protective orders could only be issued for children under 18. Melanie’s Law aims to close this legal loophole and expand protections for domestic violence victims to all their family members.
  *   Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act: This act allows for reduced sentences for individuals convicted of serious crimes, such as murder, if they can demonstrate that they were victims of significant domestic abuse. The law aims to provide justice for those who commit crimes in response to prolonged abuse.

Conclusion

Domestic violence offenses in New York City are treated with utmost seriousness, and the legal system provides various avenues for both prosecution and defense. The penalties for such offenses can be severe, impacting an individual’s freedom, reputation, and future opportunities. Oftentimes complaints are made to the police in the heat of the moment, but arrests may be made and cases pursued even where complainants wish to retract their complaints.

If you or someone you know is facing domestic violence charges, it is crucial to seek experienced legal counsel to navigate the complexities of the legal system and to ensure that rights are protected throughout the process. Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan supervising prosecutor within the domestic violence unit. He is an experienced criminal defense attorney who has successfully defended dozens of people accused of domestic violence offenses of all sorts. If you or a loved one have been arrested for domestic violence, you should strongly consider engaging him to be your lawyer.

The trial judge will now be responsible for sentencing Mr. Majors. The defense lawyers may ask that the trial court overturn the jury’s verdict, but those sorts of motions are rarely granted. Instead, the defense lawyers will need to concern themselves for now with persuading the judge to impose a non-jail sentence. The court could sentence Mr. Majors for as much as one year in jail, which he would have to serve at the notorious prison on Rikers Island. However, the court could instead impose a sentence of up to three years’ probation (which would restrict his ability to travel, even for work), or other conditions like anger management or counseling. The defense attorneys will likely propose some sort of counseling program with community service and beg the court to not sentence him to probation so that he can travel to filming locations without interruption or complication. Obviously, this conviction may ruin his Hollywood career, as certain projects have already been put on hold or suspended as producers awaited the outcome of this trial.

If one had to predict, one would not expect the court to impose a jail sentence in a reckless assault case. First, Mr. Majors has no criminal history, which tends to militate strongly against jail sentences in relatively minor cases. Furthermore, the injuries sustained by Mr. Jabbari appeared to be relatively minor on the spectrum of assault cases; certainly, many assault trials involve much more serious injuries resulting in hospitalizations and/or permanent disabilities. Mr. Majors is a prominent person and the court might want to make an example of him, but he is also potentially able to do something positive for the community, as well. So, I would predict some sort of combination of anger management and community service, along with an order of protection in favor of Ms. Jabbari. The big question really is whether Mr. Majors will be sentenced to a period of probation, which would be a huge hindrance for his career.

The verdict is somewhat surprising here. There was some evidence that tended to suggest that Mr. Majors was a victim of Ms. Jabbari’s aggression. Indeed, he filed a report against Mr. Jabbari that did originally result in her arrest, as well. Moreover, an Uber driver who shuttled the two of them together about the time of the assault offered the opinion that Ms. Jabbari was initiating the conflict. It’s always difficult to second-guess strategic decisions made by attorneys in the trial, but Mr. Majors’ decision not to take the stand almost certainly cost him. Courts also instruct juries not to infer guilt from a defendant’s decision not to testify, but the jury had to perplexed by the fact that a charismatic stage and film actor would sit silently at the defense table and let his attorney make the case that he was a victim, without saying it himself.

Mr. Majors will be able to pursue an appeal if he so chooses, but appeals courts are loath to overturn verdicts based upon the facts. Typically, questions of guilt or innocence are entrusted to the jury, as are assessments of witness credibility. Those decisions usually remain undisturbed. If the defense can make the argument that the trial court made an improper legal ruling that had a material effect on the outcome, then they may have a chance on appeal. But there’s nothing in the record here that stands out as particularly controversial, in terms of legal decisions made by the court during the trial. So, it is more likely than not that this judgment will be affirmed on appeal.

The author of this article, Matthew Galluzzo, is a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor. As a prosecutor, he was a supervisor in the domestic violence bureau of the New York County District Attorney’s Office, the same office that prosecuted Jonathan Majors in this case. He was worked as an appellate prosecutor responding to criminal appeals, and later prosecuted murders and sex crimes cases. In 2023, in recognition of his service to the French government and his successful representation of dozens of French citizens, he was knighted by the nation of France and is now a Chevalier in the French Order of Merit.

Ms. Exum is being charged with one count of Assault in the Second Degree, a class D violent felony in violation of New York Penal Law Section 120.05. A person is guilty of it when they intentionally cause injury to another person by means of a weapon or dangerous instrument. Stabbing someone definitely qualifies (indeed, if the injuries were more serious, she would be looking at Assault in the First Degree). This the appropriate charge here.

At arraignments, the judge will issue an order of protection in favor of the victim of the stabbing (i.e. Ms. Exum’s boyfriend/ex-boyfriend), precluding her from having any contact with him whatsoever. She cannot contact him electronically, through social media, in person, or through third parties (some judges even go so far as to say that you cannot like the other person’s social media postings). Even if Ms. Exum’s boyfriend forgives her and tries to call her, for example, she cannot speak with him or communicate with him without violating the order of protection and risking a re-arrest by the police. The order is not the victim’s to apply as he sees fit – it is issued by the court and must be obeyed. These sorts of orders are particularly complicated when the parties lived together, as the criminal defendant simply has to vacate and find somewhere else to sleep.

Frequently, victims/complainants in these cases do not wish to cooperate with law enforcement. When someone gets stabbed, the police are usually called, and an arrest usually happens. Police basically have to make an arrest in a situation like this. It is hardly uncommon for these victims to immediately try to undo the arrests or ask prosecutors to dismiss the cases. That doesn’t always work, however. Ms. Exum’s boyfriend/ex-boyfriend is not a plaintiff in a civil case, he is simply a witness in a criminal case prosecuted by the state. As such, prosecutors will get to decide whether to dismiss the case or not, regardless of the boyfriend’s preferences. And, the order of protection will remain in place so long as the prosecution continues. This is a frustrating reality for a lot of people involved in domestic violence cases.

As a practical matter, though, it can be very difficult for prosecutors to successfully prosecute domestic violence cases without cooperative victims. After all, their testimony is normally necessary to prove what happened during the crimes. However, there are some circumstances in which a prosecutor can prosecute a case even without a cooperative witness. Police have probably taken photographs of the injuries to Ms. Exum’s ex-boyfriend, and may have a 911 recording describing the crime in the heat of the moment (possibly causing it to be admissible at trial). Ms. Exum may have made admissions to police as to what happened, too. The statements that the ex-boyfriend made to emergency medical personnel might also be admissible at trial, even without his cooperation. Finally, it could be possible for prosecutors to subpoena the ex-boyfriend to testify about what happened, forcing him to either tell the truth or commit perjury under oath.

A stabbing case is serious and can certainly result in multiple years in prison. Assuming Ms. Exum does not have a criminal record, and the injuries are not too terrible, it may be possible for her to negotiate a deal for a misdemeanor with probation and anger management and counseling. But should she lose at trial, she could definitely face some time in prison.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for domestic violence, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced criminal defense attorney who has helped celebrities, athletes, actors, models, doctors, lawyers, and a variety of financial professionals defend against charges of domestic violence.

1. Understanding the Process

The criminal justice system can be intimidating for a victim, so much so that many crime victims decline to even make a report or complaint. As a longtime former Manhattan prosecutor, Matthew Galluzzo can answer questions a crime victim might have about the process, including: 1) whether, and how the perpetrator will be arrested, 2) what the perpetrator might be charged with and what penalties he/she would face, 3) whether the crime victim will have to testify, and/or when and how often, 4) whether the crime victim will ever have to confront the perpetrator in court, 5) whether the crime victim’s identity will ever be known to the perpetrator, and 6) what sort of outcome the crime victim might reasonably expect. Many crime victims have found these sorts of consultations with Mr. Galluzzo to be invaluable, in that it relieves some of the stress in the process and helps them decide what course of action to take.

2. Protecting your Rights and Interests

For those victims who have chosen to make reports, Mr. Galluzzo can help protect their rights and interests throughout the process. Oftentimes, crime victims may themselves be at some risk for arrest or criminal prosecution based upon their complaints, and need an attorney to ensure the proper invocation of their Fifth Amendment rights. Victims should not assume that just because they are cooperating with law enforcement that they themselves are immune from punishment fo their own actions.

3. Advocating for a Result

Crime victims may also wish to have an attorney communicating with the prosecution to skillfully advocate for a particular result. Attorneys for victims can possibly help victims get full restitution in fraud cases, for example, or convince prosecutors to seek certain penalties in assault cases. The advantage of having an attorney for this purpose is that he/she should have a better understanding of the prosecutorial options. Moreover, a former prosecutor will be more credible in discussing these options with a prosecutor.

4. Bringing a Lawsuit

Victims of crimes may wish to pursue civil lawsuits against the criminals or the establishments where the crimes happened. These suits can be sometimes be brought after the criminal justice process has concluded, but can also be brought while the criminal case is pending. The decision as to whether or not to bring such a suit depends not only on whether the facts can be proven, but on whether money damages can actually be recovered from the perpetrator. Mr. Galluzzo has also assisted crime victims in bringing civil lawsuits against perpetrators of crimes. In many ways, his background as a former prosecutor makes him ideally suited to “prosecuting” a crime in civil court. He has helped victims of rape, sexual assault, assault, and other crimes sue individuals and establishments for money damages sustained by crime victims, and has helped them navigate the criminal justice system so as to maximize their results in civil court. Mr. Galluzzo is very selective about the cases that he pursues in this way, but is prepared to discuss the possibility with you.

If you or a loved one have been the victim of a crime, you should strongly consider contacting the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC and speaking with Matthew Galluzzo, a former Manhattan prosecutor.

Some of the most common types of cases in New York City’s criminal courts are those involving domestic violence. The criminal courts classify as “domestic violence” those crimes allegedly committed against family members, spouses, and/or current or former romantic partners. Those crimes can include actual violent acts like assault and/or rape, threatening behavior like menacing or harassment, and violations of orders of protection (criminal contempt), among other things. Typical charges might include Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law 120.00, a class A misdemeanor), Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law 240.30, a class A misdemeanor), Strangulation in the Second Degree (Penal Law 121.12, a class D felony), and Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree (Penal Law 215.50) (a class A misdemeanor).

Many victims of domestic violence are surprised to learn that they cannot simply “drop the charges” against a defendant, or voluntarily and immediately terminate the criminal case they helped initiate. Quite frequently, a dispute between family members or spouses leads to someone calling the police, and when the police arrive, one of the participants in the argument (or the victim) reports that they have been assaulted or threatened. That report alone provides probable cause for the police to make an arrest, and, generally, police are in fact required to make an arrest under such circumstances. The complainants frequently regret having made the reports leading to the arrests, but after the arrests, the decision about whether the case proceeds or not is not the complainant’s decision to make.

Most domestic violence cases are misdemeanors, and in most cases, for a misdemeanor case to progress, the prosecutors need a sworn deposition (sometimes called a supporting deposition or corroborating affidavit) from the victim or primary witness. As a practical matter, if the complainants refuse to sign these documents, then it is normally very difficult for the prosecutors to prosecute these cases. Without these supporting depositions, many cases of domestic violence will get dismissed for failure to prosecute.

However, there are many misdemeanor cases of domestic violence in which the prosecutors do not require supporting depositions. Prosecutors can sometimes use “excited utterances” made by complainants to police officers in the heat of the moment to prove the crimes. They can also use recordings of frantic phone calls made to 911. Certainly, relevant third party or neutral witnesses can be called to testify against defendants where complainants or victims refuse to cooperate. In cases of Criminal Contempt (violations of orders of protection), there are typically neutral witnesses or police officers that can testify about the two parties being together when they shouldn’t be, per to the court order. In short, a complainant’s refusal to cooperate does not at all guarantee a dismissal in a misdemeanor case of domestic violence.

In felony cases, complainants can be subpoenaed to testify under oath before the grand jury. Some complainants are tempted to lie and say that their attackers did not in fact assault them. The problem with this approach is that it means that the either their initial report to police was false (and it is a crime to make a false report to police), or their testimony before the grand jury is false (and that would constitute the felony crime of perjury). Put another way, lying before the grand jury under such circumstances is likely to get the complainant into serious trouble.

In domestic violence cases, judges almost automatically order full orders of protection in favor of the alleged victim of the crime. This happens at arraignments, or the defendant’s first court appearance following the arrest. Some victims of domestic violence think that they can simply disregard the orders of protection, and some defendants believe that the person protected by the order can waive the order. That is not the case at all, however. Time after time, defendants are invited back home by the person protected in the order, only to get arrested when police officers do a follow up visit of the home and discover the defendant living with the person that the judge has ordered him to stay away from. The applicable charge in this case would be Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree, and it is very difficult to defend against under these circumstances.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a crime of domestic violence, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo.

Generally, the reaction from the public and other players has been appropriately scornful of this detestable conduct. After initially suspending him for just a few games (a decision for which the league commissioner, Roger Goodell, received considerable and deserved criticism), the NFL suspended him from playing for a year. His team waived him despite his multi-million dollar contract and importance to their on-field success. Ray Rice’s Nike sponsorship has been canceled and his high jersey even removed from the display case of his high school. If there’s any silver lining to this terrible tragedy, it is that it has forced people to have frank conversations about the problem of domestic violence.

Some people have been wondering aloud, also, about the disposition of the criminal case that arose from this act. Ray Rice was indicted for aggravated assault but ultimately allowed to enter into a pre-trial intervention (or diversion) program, whereby he will avoid jail or even a criminal conviction so long as he attends and successfully completes an anger management program. Also, seemingly, there is no order of protection preventing him from interacting with his wife.

The author of this post was previously interviewed about this disposition for USA Today, and offered the opinion that this disposition was “inappropriate”. The Atlantic County prosecutor that made this plea bargain and New Jersey defense attorneys that practice in Atlantic County have responded by saying that Ray Rice received a typical plea bargain and did not receive preferential treatment despite his status and money. The author has no reason to doubt that this is true, but the fact remains, that this disposition was shockingly lenient. Indeed, one need only consider how this case would have played out in nearby Manhattan as a comparison.

Ray Rice would have been charged with a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail called Assault in the Third Degree, in violation of Penal Law § 120.00. He also would have been forced to abide by a full order of protection preventing him from returning to his victim’s home (even if it is also his home) or having any contact with her whatsoever, in person or on the telephone, etc. during the pendency of the case. Oftentimes, prosecutions are impossible when victims refuse to cooperate (a factor cited by the New Jersey prosecutor), but here, the victim’s cooperation was not necessary for the prosecutor to get a conviction at trial or proceed with the case because a videotape made everything plain and clear.

Some people have also been critical of or very surprised by some of the supportive public statements made by Ray Rice’s victim, his wife Janay, but those statements are hardly surprising to anyone familiar with domestic violence. To say that the psychology of a battered spouse is often complicated would be an understatement. One can read the outpouring of Twitter statements under the #whyistayed hastag to understand some of the conflicting emotions that abuse victims often feel. Here, Janay made it clear that she did not want her husband to suffer serious legal or financial consequences for his actions, and that she wanted her relationship with him to continue. The prosecutor cited Janay’s desires for leniency as a justification for the plea bargain, while also describing the plea bargain as typical for first-time offenders in domestic violence cases.

However, there is another approach, and it is favored by the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office: ignore the desires of domestic violence victims. Time and time again domestic violence victims in Manhattan beg prosecutors to remove orders of protection so that they can be with their abusers, and Manhattan prosecutors and judges routinely – almost reflexively – refuse to budge. It is not uncommon to see a domestic abuse victim sitting in the courtroom at a criminal court arraignment in Manhattan begging the judge to allow her husband/boyfriend to come home, only to see the judge look up at her and then coldly issue a full stay-away no-contact order of protection. These orders of protection have teeth too: Manhattan police officers perform routine home visits in pending domestic violence cases to catch defendants back at their apartments with their victims, and will make arrests for Criminal Contempt on the spot.

The assumption behind this approach is that domestic violence victims don’t make good decisions for themselves when it comes to their abusers. In NJ, apparently, the prosecutor will hear out the victim and take his/her opinion into consideration when making a plea bargain offer. (Anecdotally, the Queens County D.A. in New York oftentimes takes a similar approach). Basically, that just isn’t the case in Manhattan, and I cannot possibly explain why one jurisdiction does it differently than the other.

Although New York County has a “pre-trial intervention” program like the New Jersey equivalent called an “ACD” (adjournment in contemplation of dismissal), only rarely does a domestic abuser get offered such a disposition on a very serious assault case like this one (which is not to say that some assault cases are not serious, just that the violence in this case was particularly shocking in its brutality). Moreover, it would be very unlikely to happen in a case with a videotape like this one because the number one weakness in most domestic violence prosecutions – that it cannot be proven without a cooperative victim – was not present here. Yes, Manhattan does refer defendants in domestic violence cases to various domestic-abuse-counseling and anger-management programs, but that is usually done in conjunction with a plea to a violation AND, importantly, also in conjunction with a full-order of protection in favor of the victim. But in this case, with a videotape showing such a brutal assault, Ray Rice would likely be looking at a criminal conviction and the possibility of jail or probation, plainly put. That would be the more expected disposition with evidence this strong and facts this outrageous. I’ve worked on hundreds of domestic violence cases in this jurisdiction on both sides of the aisle and can state that confidently.

Consider for a moment this paradox: if Ray Rice had hit an ordinary man or a woman with whom he was not in a romantic relationship in that way, he would probably be in serious jeopardy of going to jail for it in almost any jurisdiction. Right now, this office is representing a young man charged with punching another man one time in the face, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office is recommending to the judge that he receive a sentence of one year in jail. I imagine that the New Jersey prosecutor that gave Ray Rice this plea bargain routinely expects people to plead guilty to criminal charges after being indicted for aggravated assault, especially when there’s conclusive videotaped proof the person’s guilt. So why is it that a football player with bulging biceps can punch a woman in the face and leave the courthouse for good without ever having spent a day in jail or any sort of criminal record? One wouldn’t likely get that result if one punches a man in an elevator with a video surveillance camera.

I think the NJ prosecutor needs to answer that question more adequately than he already has.

(Note: there are thousands of assault cases in Manhattan every year and they have widely different results. Indeed, this office has gotten extraordinary results on a number of occasions. But the fact remains that an “ACD” with anger management and no order of protection in a case this serious with a videotape would not be a “typical” outcome in NY, it would be a highly unusual or uncommon result – an outlier, really.)

The author of this post, Matthew Galluzzo, is a criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan domestic violence prosecutor. In addition to defending criminal defendants, he also represents victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse in civil litigation.

The least serious of these Criminal Contempt charges is Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree, Penal Law § 215.50, a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison. The statute reads as follows:

A person is guilty of criminal contempt in the second degree when he engages in any of the following conduct: 1. Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior, committed during the sitting of a court, in its immediate view and presence and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings or to impair the respect due to its authority; or 2. Breach of the peace, noise, or other disturbance, directly tending to interrupt a court’s proceedings; or 3. Intentional disobedience or resistance to the lawful process or other mandate of a court except in cases involving or growing out of labor disputes as defined by subdivision two of section seven hundred fifty-three-a of the judiciary law; or 4. Contumacious and unlawful refusal to be sworn as a witness in any court proceeding or, after being sworn, to answer any legal and proper interrogatory; or 5. Knowingly publishing a false or grossly inaccurate report of a court’s proceedings; or 6. Intentional failure to obey any mandate, process or notice, issued pursuant to articles sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, or eighteen-a of the judiciary law, or to rules adopted pursuant to any such statute or to any special statute establishing commissioners of jurors and prescribing their duties or who refuses to be sworn as provided therein; or 7. On or along a public street or sidewalk within a radius of two hundred feet of any building established as a courthouse, he calls aloud, shouts, holds or displays placards or signs containing written or printed matter, concerning the conduct of a trial being held in such courthouse or the character of the court or jury engaged in such trial or calling for or demanding any specified action or determination by such court or jury in connection with such trial.

The most relevant subsection of the above statute is 3, as prosecutions under the other subsections are exceedingly rare. It is this subsection that is used to prosecute violations of orders of protection, in that an order of protection is a “lawful mandate of a court”. Prosecutors typically prove violations of orders of protection by demonstrating that the defendant against whom an order of protection was in effect made contact in person, over the telephone, or via text message or email, with the person protected by the order. These cases can be especially strong for a prosecutor because oftentimes the cooperation of the complaining witness is not even necessary to prove the violation. After all, the prosecutor can sometimes introduce violating emails or telephone records or text messages without calling the complainant as a witness – representatives of the phone company or internet service provider can introduce these records as “business records.”

Sometimes, police officers or third party witnesses discover the complainants and defendants voluntarily being together (even living together) in violation of an order of protection. In these cases, the defendant can be arrested and convicted even if the complainant witness explains that she invited the defendant over to see her. This is because the complaining witness does not have the power or authority to negate an order of protection – only a judge can do that. Thus, a prosecutor can convict a defendant for violating an order of protection – and send him to jail – even in cases in which the complainant badly wishes the defendant not to be convicted. Similarly, a defendant is not legally allowed to respond to a protected complainant via telephone, email or text, even if the complainant reaches out to him and begs him to respond.

The charges can be especially serious when defendants attempt to intimidate, assault or menace the people protected by orders of protection. For example, Criminal Contempt in the First Degree, Penal Law Section 215.51, makes it a felony – punishable by state prison in excess of one year – where a defendant:

intentionally places or attempts to place a person for whose protection such order was issued in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm or by means of a threat or threats; or (ii) intentionally places or attempts to place a person for whose protection such order was issued in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death by repeatedly following such person or engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts over a period of time; or (iii) intentionally places or attempts to place a person for whose protection such order was issued in reasonable fear of physical injury, serious physical injury or death when he or she communicates or causes a communication to be initiated with such person by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication; or (iv) with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm a person for whose protection such order was issued, repeatedly makes telephone calls to such person, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or (v) with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm a person for whose protection such order was issued, strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact or attempts or threatens to do the same; or (vi) by physical menace, intentionally places or attempts to place a person for whose protection such order was issued in reasonable fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury.

A defendant can be charged with the even more serious Class D felony of Aggravated Criminal Contempt (Penal Law § 215.52) when he actually causes physically injury to someone protected by an order of protection. Specifically, a person is guilty of this crime where:

1. in violation of a duly served order of protection, or such order of which the defendant has actual knowledge because he or she was present in court when such order was issued, or an order of protection issued by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state, territorial or tribal jurisdiction, he or she intentionally or recklessly causes physical injury or serious physical injury to a person for whose protection such order was issued;

In addition to the potential jail sentences, convictions for Criminal Contempt can have other serious consequences for defendants. First and foremost, judges routinely set very high bail for defendants with convictions for Criminal Contempt on their “rap sheets” (criminal records). Also, people previously convicted of Criminal Contempt can face more serious “bump-up” felony charges if they are charged again with Criminal Contempt (see Penal Law Section 215.51[c] and Penal Law Sections 251.52[2] and [3]).

If you or a loved one have been accused of Criminal Contempt, you should strongly consider contacting an experienced criminal defense attorney immediately.

The most common arrest charges falling under the general umbrella of “domestic violence” include Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law Section 120.00) and Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law Section 240.30). Both are Class A misdemeanors punishable by up to a year in prison. Other less-common charges include Strangulation, Stalking, Assault in the Second Degree (Penal Law Section 120.05, a Class D felony), and homicide and manslaughter.

Once a complaint or report about domestic violence is made to the police (usually in the form of a 911 call), an arrest is virtually guaranteed. Indeed, people routinely call the police to say that they were assaulted by their partners but are surprised to learn that the police will actually arrest their assailant. Seemingly, many complainants think that the police will come and simply calm down the situation at home. However, if the complaint is for assault or some other form of violence, an arrest is almost certainly going to happen, even if the complainant changes her mind about the report and begs the police not to arrest her partner/assailant.

After a suspect is arrested, the police will probably try to take a statement from him.Suspects almost never help themselves by talking, because at this point, the suspect is almost certainly going to be charged with a crime (and spend a night in jail) no matter what they say to the police. Defendants, even clever ones, are far more likely to incriminate themselves – perhaps without even realizing it.

The defendant will be arraigned in criminal court, and the judge will almost certainly issue a full order of protection. Orders of protection are temporary and generally last until the next court date, when they are typically renewed. Order of protection come in two typical varieties: a full order of protection instructs someone to stay away from another person (as well as their home, office, school etc) and have no contact whatsoever with that person, whereas a limited order of protection instructs a person to commit no crimes against another person. The penalties for violating these orders of protection can be serious, and the violator can expect to be charged with Criminal Contempt.

Complaining witnesses or victims of domestic violence often come to court for the partner’s arraignment begging for the court not to issue an order of protection, but this almost never works. Plainly put, it is not the victim’s decision about whether he/she wants an order of protection, and the victim protected by the order of protection does not have the power to negate it. Thus, even if a victim invites a defendant over to the victim’s residence, the defendant cannot go see the victim without possibly being guilty of Criminal Contempt. The domestic violence officers in precincts routinely make “follow-up visits” to the homes of victims with pending cases to see if defendants have returned home, and if they catch defendants at the homes in violation of the orders of protection, they will arrest the person on the spot without any questions asked (or necessary, really).

Victims cannot “drop charges” in New York City as the prosecutor is solely in charge of deciding whether to prosecute someone. However, as a practical matter, prosecutors usually have difficulty proving cases without cooperative victims. In fact, if a victim declines to cooperate with the prosecutor altogether, the case will usually be dismissed pursuant to CPL § 30.30, though it might take 90 days (for a misdemeanor) or six months for a felony.

Shortly after a defendant’s arraignment on domestic violence charges, prosecutors will contact the victim and ask them to sign a “supporting deposition,” or affidavit in support of the complaint. The prosecutor usually cannot make much happen in a misdemeanor case without one fo these, though occasionally domestic incident reports (DIRs) or independent eyewitnesses can be used to pursue cases without the victim’s cooperation.

The results of these cases can depend wildly. Certainly, a cooperative victim makes a conviction far more likely for a defendant. Also, when injuries are serious (or harassing conduct particularly menacing), prosecutors are more likely to insist that defendants plead guilty to misdemeanors or do time in jail. In most other cases, prosecutors are often willing to negotiate plea bargain offers involving violations or even ACD’s with counseling programs such as DVAP and final orders of protection with varying lengths.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for domestic violence, you should strongly consider retaining the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney with a background in domestic violence prosecutions.

Strangulation in the Second Degree under Penal Law 121.12 states that “A person is guilty of strangulation in the second degree when he or she commits the crime of criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation, as defined in section 121.11 of this article, and thereby causes stupor, loss of consciousness for any period of time, or any other physical injury or impairment. Strangulation in the Second Degree is a class D felony.”

Some lawyers have questioned, however, whether it would be possible to be convicted of an Attempt to Commit the Crime of Strangulation in the Second Degree, or whether such attempt would be completely encapsulated by the misdemeanor charge. For example, suppose the facts were that a man intended to impede the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of another person by applying pressure to the neck of another person and that person did NOT suffer stupor, loss of consciousness for any period of time, or any other physical injury or impairment. That would clearly be a prima facie case of the misdemeanor charge.

However, suppose that the People’s theory of the case were that the man intended to cause stupor, loss of consciousness, etc., by applying pressure to the throat, but failed to achieve that result. Would this be a case of the “E” felony of attempted strangulation in the second degree? Perhaps not.

In the area of manslaughter, courts have held certain “attempt-based” crimes to be non-existent. For example, in People v. McDavis, 97 A.D. 2d 302 (3d Dep’t 1983), the Appellate Division, Third Department held that there was no such crime as attempted manslaughter in the first degree: “A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime only when he intends to commit that crime. There must be a specific intent to commit a specific crime. Hence, there can be no attempt to commit a crime that does not involve a specific intent, such as manslaughter in the second degree, a crime predicated on a reckless act. Likewise, there can be no attempt to commit a crime where one of the elements is a specific intent but another, an unintended result. Thus, there are no such crimes as attempt to commit felony murder, attempt to commit felony assault, and by parity of reasoning, attempt to commit manslaughter in the first degree. In each of those crimes, one of the elements is an unintended result – physical injury in the case of felony assault, and death in the cases of felony murder and manslaughter in the first degree. Since one cannot intend an unintended result, there can be no attempt to commit those crimes.” Id. at 303-304.

Here, it appears that the intent to commit the crime of strangulation in the second degree would be completely subsumed by the misdemeanor charge. After all, if the victim does not suffer stupor or any of the other consequences noted in the statute, than the person has merely done what needed to be done to satisfy all of the elements of the misdemeanor charge.

The intent element of the strangulation in the second degree charge, however, is the intent to commit the misdemeanor charge, that is: the intent to impede the normal breathing or circulation of the blood of another person. PL 121.11. Strangulation in the second degree does NOT require a specific intent to cause stupor, loss of consciousness for any period of time, or any other physical injury or impairment. Thus, those occurrences may be said to be mere “unintended results” of the misdemeanor intent, but not required to prove the charge itself. Had the legislature wanted the intent to achieve those results to be an element of the offense, it could have inserted language that would have made that clear, i.e. “A person is guilty of strangulation in the second degree when, with the intent to cause stupor, loss of consciousness for any period of time, or any other physical injury or impairment, he or she commits the crime of criminal obstruction . . . .”

The absence of that intent language strongly suggests that the E felony of Attempted Strangulation in the Second Degree is a “non-existent” crime and may not be charged as a lesser-included offense of the D at the jury instruction phase of a trial.

If you have been charged with any strangulation offense, but particularly an attempted strangulation charge, you need to seek the advice of experienced New York strangulation attorneys.

The basic charge is Menacing in the third degree (Penal Law section 120.15) is defined as follows:

A person is guilty of menacing in the third degree when, by physical menace, he or she intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury or physical injury. Menacing in the third degree is a class B misdemeanor.

Menacing in the Second Degree (Penal Law section 120.14) is an example of a bump-up type charge. There are three distinct aggravating factors which serve to elevate the charge to a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. These are (i) committing a third-degree menacing charge by displaying a deadly weapon, dangerous instrument or what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm (PL 120.14(1); (ii) by following a person or engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts over a period of time which constitute a third-degree menacing charge (PL 120.14(2); and (iii) committing a third-degree menacing charge in violation of a duly served order of protection or stay-away order from a judge (PL 120.14(3).

Finally, there is a felony charge which bumps up a second-degree menacing charge where the person has been convicted of another second-degree menacing charge or the crime of menacing a police officer (PL 120.18) within two years of the commission of the present alleged offense.

Interestingly, the law was passed in 1994 and put into effect in 1995, to close what the legislature perceived to be a loophole in the anti-domestic violence laws and was passed as part of the “family protection and domestic violence intervention act of 1994.” The law has been applied, however, to a variety of situations, not just those involving domestic violence or incidents between people who have had intimate access in the past, i.e. the ex-boyfriend/ex-girlfriend scenario. For example, in Matter of Jason R. G., 23 A.D.3d 656 (2d Dep’t 2005), a person was prosecuted for chasing and threatening another person on the street with a knife. In People v. Silva, 178 Misc.2d 538 (Bx. Co. Ct. 1998), a Bronx conviction was upheld where the defendant had threatened a police officer while touching his waistband after a drug-related conversation.

However, not all allegedly threatening conduct will constitute a violation. In People v. Nwogu, 22 Misc.3d 201 (Qns. Co. Ct. 2008), Judge Lopresto held that a misdemeanor information was facially insufficient where it merely alleged that the defendant stood up and stated “I am going to blow up,” and that after he did so, a complainant observed the handle of a knife protruding from the defendant’s waistband. The judge held that the defendant’s words were not directed at anyone in particular (which was required under the statute) and that nobody could have been placed in fear of death, imminent serious physical injury, or physical injury by merely observing the knife handle. Moreover, the court held, there were insufficient allegations that the defendant intended to display the weapon, as any display as alleged in the complaint was inadvertent. Moreover, proof of an injury alone will not suffice to validate a Menacing charge. See Matter of Anisha McG., 27 A.D.3d 749 (2d Dep’t 2006).

If you have been arrested for this offense, you should speak with a menacing, stalking or aggravated harrassment lawyer in New York City.

In our experience, these cases most often arise in domestic situations. We have seen a number of people charged with Attempted Strangulation in the Second Degree – which is a very serious E felony – in cases where they have attempted to restrain or defend against a hysterical or aggressive wife, girlfriend or partner. Also, we have seen many cases in which complainants assert that they lost consciousness as a result of strangulation, when in reality, they had simply passed out due to drug or alcohol abuse. Finally, some strangulation cases may be defensible as consensual acts of auto-erotic asphyxiation. Thus, understanding the precise facts of the encounter, as well as the medical and scientific evidence, is absolutely critical in defending these cases.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a violation of the Strangulation laws, you should consider contacting the experienced criminal defense lawyers at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Their lawyers include three former prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, all of whom investigated and prosecuted dozens of assault- and strangulation-related cases. (Matthew Galluzzo, in particular, was a supervisor in the Domestic Violence Unit and regularly advised and trained other prosecutors in how to effectively investigate and prosecute domestic violence cases.) As criminal defense lawyers, they have leveraged their experience on behalf of their clients, many of whom have seen their assault and domestic violence-related charges dismissed as a result of their efforts. Call them or email them to schedule an appointment.

First of all, the question may arise, “What is bail?” Bail is simply a condition set forth by the Court that the defendant must first comply with before he can be released from the custody of the New York City Department of Corrections. In most cases, that would be an amount of money designated by the judge in either cash or bond. The difference between these two methods of bail will be explained later.

It should be noted that in the case of many first-time offenders, no bail will be set at all. This is because the purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant returns to court to answer for the charges. Contrary to popular belief, bail is not supposed to be “preventative detention,” or a way to prevent people from committing future crimes. Thus, if a defendant is an otherwise law-abiding citizen, and the charge is not serious enough to warrant bail, a judge may simply release him or her on their own recognizance. This is sometimes called “ROR.” In other cases, however, a judge may determine that a certain amount of bail is appropriate even for a first time offender. The criteria that the judge will consider is set forth in the Criminal Procedure Law:

2. To the extent that the issuance of an order of recognizance or bail and the terms thereof are matters of discretion rather than of law, an application is determined on the basis of the following factors and criteria: (a) With respect to any principal, the court must consider the kind and degree of control or restriction that is necessary to secure his court attendance when required. In determining that matter, the court must, on the basis of available information, consider and take into account: (i) The principal’s character, reputation, habits and mental condition; (ii) His employment and financial resources; and (iii) His family ties and the length of his residence if any in the community; and (iv) His criminal record if any; and (v) His record of previous adjudication as a juvenile delinquent, as retained pursuant to section 354.2 of the family court act, or, of pending cases where fingerprints are retained pursuant to section 306.1 of such act, or a youthful offender, if any; and (vi) His previous record if any in responding to court appearances when required or with respect to flight to avoid criminal prosecution; and (vii) If he is a defendant, the weight of the evidence against him in the pending criminal action and any other factor indicating probability or improbability of conviction; or, in the case of an application for bail or recognizance pending appeal, the merit or lack of merit of the appeal; and (viii) If he is a defendant, the sentence which may be or has been imposed upon conviction.

Many of these factors are self-explanatory. If a person has a prior criminal history, or a record of not showing up to court, the judge will probably set an amount of bail that he or she feels is necessary to secure his or her attendance in court. However, if the charge is serious, then it is very important to try to retain an experienced New York City criminal lawyer before your friend or loved one sees the judge. The lawyer will be able to assist in gathering information and proof that the judge will consider in making the court’s bail decision. This material can include papers considering his or her employment, paystubs, proof of residence, and other material that will be helpful in convincing the court to either ROR the defendant or set an amount of bail that he or she can actually make.

Assuming that the judge sets bail, one needs to be informed as to the precise method specified by the court. For example, a judge may set bail in the amount of $100,000 bond over $50,000 cash. The best way to explain this is to start with the cash alternative. In this example, if a family member has $50,000 in cash, that can be posted to secure the defendant’s attendance, with no other steps being necessary. Bail can be paid either at the courthouse or the corrections facility where the defendant is being held. If the bail is going to be made at the court, it is probably best to speak with an attorney to get an idea of how much the bail may be so that you can come prepared with money necessary. On the other hand, if the defendant chooses to go with the $100,000 bond alternative, he or she must deal with a bail bondsperson. The bondsperson’s job is simply to gauge the amount of risk he or she is willing to take that the defendant will return to court when required. In exchange for taking on this risk, he or she takes a fee. Every situation is different, but a bondsperson will usually ask the friend or family member of the arrested person to pay a percentage of the total bond amount, and then provide some sort of security for the remainder. Again using the example of a $100,000 bond, the bondsman may ask for $10,000 cash, and the deed to a home or other form of collateral to secure the other $90,000. At the end of the case, the bondsperson will give you back the cash you posted, less a fee that he or she takes for assuming the risk.

Remember that in dealing with a bondsperson, they may have reporting requirements or “check ins” that will occur periodically to ensure that they are in touch with the defendant. If the defendant does not comply with the conditions of the bond, the bondsperson can go to the court and ask that the bond be revoked and that the defendant be taken into custody.

With that said, the best possible thing to do is to retain an attorney before the initial hearing because the attorney can do two things: (1) make a reasoned and cogent argument to the judge as to why no bail should be set (“ROR”) or that a lower amount of bail is necessary than what the Assistant District Attorney may ask for and (2) if bail is set, put you in touch with a respectable bail bondsperson and assist in the bail making process.

Should you need advice as to how any of this works, you should contact a New York City bail attorney.

1. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, by telegraph, or by mail, or by transmitting or delivering any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or

2. Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication; or

3. Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects another person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same because of a belief or perception regarding such person’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct; or

4. Commits the crime of harassment in the first degree and has previously been convicted of the crime of harassment in the first degree as defined by section 240.25 of this article within the preceding ten years.

In our experience, these crimes are frequently reported in cases involving bickering spouses or ex-boyfriends/girlfriends. The cases brought under subsection 1 of Penal Law Section 240.30 can be easy for prosecutors to prove because there is oftentimes some electronic or recorded evidence of the crime. In cases involving e-mail or text messages, for example, the complaining witness or victim can show the email/text to the police or prosecutor and easily give them probable cause to make an arrest. Sometimes the identity of the sender of the message is obvious, but even when illegal messages are sent anonymously, police can sometimes trace the origin of the message with an IP address or telephone account information. Keep in mind, though, that a person that says something threatening over the phone can be arrested for Aggravated Harassment in the Second Degree even when the telephone call is not recorded, so long as the complaining witness is sufficiently credible to the police and/or prosecutor.

Skilled defense attorneys will generally either try to argue one of two things 1) that the message at issue was not, in fact, made or sent by the accused person, or 2) that the accused person did not have a criminal intent in sending the message.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for or are being investigated for a violation of Penal Law Section 240.30, you should strongly consider contacting the skilled criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo about possible representation. Their attorneys include three former prosecutors that worked extensively on these types of cases. Matthew Galluzzo, in particular, was a supervising attorney in the domestic violence unit of the Manhattan D.A.’s Office, and has significant experience both prosecuting and defending individuals charged with violations of this crime.

The Family Court process can be daunting for a family inexperienced in defending against allegations such as these, even in juvenile arrest matters. A young defendant and his or her family will most likely be interviewed by probation and if the charge warrants it, be brought before a judge where an adjudication of juvenile delinquency can be made either through an admission or, in some cases, after a fact-finding hearing. The Family Court Act requires the attendance of the juvenile respondent and his or her counsel to be present during such a hearing. It is for this reason, that it is important that your child’s rights are protected by a lawyer experienced in handling juvenile arrest cases. If an adjudication of juvenile delinquency is made, the Family Court Act requires a dispositional hearing to take place within 10 days of the adjudication (if the charge is a felony) or within 50 days of the adjudication (for all other cases). The possible outcomes of a dispositional hearing for a juvenile defendant are three: (i) a conditional discharge, which for all intents and purposes is an order from the court requiring the juvenile to stay out of trouble and comply with whatever other conditions the court deems necessary to correct the behavior, (ii) probation, which would imply reporting to a probation officer for a set period of time, or, in extreme cases (iii) placement in a juvenile detention facility. The court’s decision will be the result of a balancing of the needs of the juvenile against the need to protect the community.

Simply put, should a loved one or family member of yours require assistance in sorting out a family court or adult criminal matter, you should call The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo.

A: Criminal Procedure Law Sections 530.12 and 530.13 authorize criminal courts to issue orders of protection when a criminal action is pending involving a complaint charging any crime or violation between family members, or for “good cause,” or upon a conviction in a case in which an order of protection had been issued. Typically, orders of protection are issued in cases involving allegations of domestic violence, harassment, rape, or assault, and they direct the accused defendants to abide by an order of protection in favor of the complaining witness or victim.

Criminal courts do not issue orders of protection of behalf of places or entities, only on behalf of individuals. Thus, a court will not issue an order of protection on behalf of a bar or an organization, but might name multiple protected people on one order.

Q: What do these orders of protection instruct?

A: In New York criminal court, there are generally two types of orders of protection: full and limited. A full order of protection is a document – signed by the defendant and the judge -that orders a defendant to have “no contact whatsoever” with the protected person. This includes physically staying away from the person, the person’s home, and the person’s school or place of business. It also instructs the defendant to refrain from communicating with the protected person via mail, telephone, email, or any other form of electronic communication (such as text messages or instant messages etc.). Finally, full orders of protection prevent defendants from sending messages to the protected parties via third parties.

Limited orders of protection instruct people to refrain from “assault, stalking, harassment, aggravated harassment, menacing, reckless endangerment, disorderly conduct, criminal mischief, intimidation, threats, or any other criminal offense” against the protected person or persons. Of course, the Penal Law already protects everyone from these offenses; the limited order of protection simply makes the offender subject to additional charges.

Q: How long are orders of protection in effect?

A: When a case is ongoing, the order of protection (called a “temporary order of protection”) usually extends from one court date to the next. Thus, the court has the flexibility to decide whether to reissue another temporary order of protection whenever the case is before it.

If a case involving an order of protection is dismissed, the order of protection is also immediately dismissed.

If, on the other hand, the case results in a conviction (whether by plea or conviction at trial), the court will usually order a “final order of protection”. The duration of the final order of protection depends on the nature of the conviction, and can range from six months to ten years.

Q: What happens if a person violates an order of protection?

A: The Penal Law makes it a crime to violate an order of protection. A routine violation of an order of protection – say, a phone call in violation of a full order of protection – will support a charge of Criminal Contempt in the Second Degree, a class A misdemeanor under Penal Law Section 215.50(3). Violating an order of protection in a violent way – such as a threat or assault against the protected party – can make one liable for the felony charge of Criminal Contempt in the First Degree (Penal Law Section 215.51(b)). Finally, repeat violators of orders of protection can also be subject to felony charges under Penal Law Section 215.51(c).

Moreover, a person that violates a temporary order of protection can be subject to a revocation of their bail or liberty. After all, when the court orders an order of protection in a case, it is also making the defendant’s adherence to the order a condition of their bail or release. When the police re-arrest a defendant for Criminal Contempt, a prosecutor has a basis to move for a bail hearing under Criminal Procedure Law Section 530.12(11)(a) that could result in the defendant being remanded into custody. Defendants that violate temporary orders of protection while in prison can have their telephone privileges revoked by the court as well.

Q: What if the protected person doesn’t want the order?

A: The protected person does not have the right to nullify or cancel the order of protection. After all, the order of protection is a court order, ordered by a judge, and only a judge has the right to rescind it or allow for exceptions. So, if the protected person calls the defendant and asks him to go to dinner with her, the defendant has to expect that if he accepts the offer and the police see them together at a restaurant, he could be arrested and then probably convicted of criminal contempt.

Q: What if I live with the protected person? Where do I go?

A: Basically, if it’s a full order of protection, you had better not go home (unless the protected person vacates the home voluntarily and permanently before you get there). Sadly, you might pay the rent for the apartment or even own the apartment, but that doesn’t give you the right to go home if the court has issued a full order of protection against you and in favor of someone else that lives there.

Q: What if the protected person calls the person that the court ordered to stay away? Is the protected person guilty of violating the order of protection?

A: The short answer is no. The court has not ordered the protected person to do anything, and the Penal Law does not consider this to be an act of Criminal Contempt. It may, however, cause the court to view the complainant skeptically and/or rescind the order of protection.

Q: What should I do if I have more questions?

A: We recommend that you contact the lawyers at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. They are experienced former prosecutors with a significant track record of success in defending people accused of domestic violence, sexual assaults and rapes, harassment and other crimes. They also have experience representing victims of domestic violence in criminal and family court cases and can help people understand and navigate what can be a very confusing and intimidating legal system. In short, contact them to make an appointment and see if they can help you.