On May 7, 2025, approximately 75 pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested at Columbia University’s Butler Library after occupying the reading room in a demonstration organized by Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD). The university cited safety concerns and the presence of non-affiliated individuals as reasons for requesting NYPD intervention. Two campus safety officers were allegedly injured during the incident.

Many of those arrested were issued Desk Appearance Tickets (DATs), a common practice in New York for certain offenses. A DAT is a written notice issued by a police officer directing an individual to appear in criminal court at a future date in connection with an alleged offense. It allows the individual to remain out of custody until their court date.

Relevant Statutes and Potential Charges

The protesters may face charges such as trespassing (Penal Law §140.05 or §140.10), disorderly conduct (Penal Law §240.20), or criminal mischief (Penal Law §145.00) if property damage occurred. There could also be charges of Obstructing Governmental Administration (Penal Law §195.05) or Resisting Arrest (Penal Law 205.30) for those individuals accused of fighting with law enforcement officers during their arrests. These offenses are typically classified as violations or misdemeanors.

Possible Penalties

Convictions for these offenses can result in prison sentences and permanent criminal records (which may impact future employment and education). These arrests are also particularly problematic for foreign students on F-1 visas, as they could negatively impact immigration status in the current environment.

Failure to Appear Consequences

If an individual fails to appear in court on the date specified in the DAT, the court may issue a bench warrant for their arrest. Additionally, under Penal Law §215.58, willfully failing to appear within 30 days can result in a separate violation charge. In some cases, Mr. Galluzzo has been able to appear in court for his clients in lieu of their personal appearances.

Legal Considerations

Given the potential legal ramifications, individuals issued a DAT are advised to consult with a criminal defense attorney to understand their rights and options. Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney. He has represented many students arrested and accused of crimes relating to political protests, with an excellent track record of success. If you or a loved one have been arrested for the protests at Columbia University on May 7, you should strongly consider engaging Matthew Galluzzo.

News links:

Protesters arrested as Columbia calls in New York police to clear Gaza solidarity sit-in – as it happened

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators clash with security guards at Columbia University

Dozens of pro-Palestinian protesters arrested after Columbia calls in police

Oftentimes, in these cases in which no one was injured, a protester-defendant could – with the help of an experienced attorney – successfully negotiate a plea bargain whereby the protester will have no criminal record and spend no time in jail (such as an “adjournment in contemplation of dismissal or a violation like Disorderly Conduct). In cases involving Desk Appearance Tickets, such negotiations may even be possible prior to the return date (i.e. the first court appearance). However, for reasons relating to principle, many protester-defendants refuse to accept any such deal, preferring to demand dismissal or a trial where their voices can be heard by a jury. Such an attitude is certainly understandable but it does tend to increase the risk of a negative result (such as a permanent criminal record).

Unfortunately, some protests escalate into confrontations with police officers. In those cases, charges like Assault in the Second Degree can sometimes be levied against arrested protesters alleged to have injured police officers. That charge is a serious felony that can carry real jail time, and should not be treated lightly at all. The best defense in these cases is often to argue that the defendant did not act unreasonably, and that any injuries to the police officer were sustained on account of his/her own aggressive or improper actions. In today’s current climate, that argument can have real traction with some jurors.

Thankfully, nowadays many protesters have video footage of their arrests, or their behavior just prior to being arrested. Oftentimes, this footage can be helpful to their defenses. In those cases, it may make sense for their attorneys to share the footage with prosecutors in the hopes of securing outright dismissals. Of course, an outright dismissal of an arrest charge can open the door to a lawsuit for wrongful arrest against the City.

Sometimes people attempt to intervene during an arrest of a protester by trying to prevent the police officer from apprehending someone else. In these cases, the intervenors typically are charged with Obstructing Government Administration or Resisting Arrest, misdemeanors. A person being unlawfully arrested can argue that they are not guilty of Resisting Arrest because the arrest was unlawful or unauthorized under the circumstances, and an intervenor may also be able to successfully argue the same thing.

Generally speaking, defendants (and defense attorneys) prefer some anonymity with respect to their cases, and prefer to try their cases discretely in the courtroom. However, for those defendants seeking trials by jury, attorneys should consider trying to garner public sympathy and/or publicity for the client’s case before the trial. After all, these cases frequently depend less on the facts presented at trial so much as they do upon the attitudes of the fact-finders (i.e. judges or juries) deciding the case.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or given a Desk Appearance Ticket in New York City for protesting, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. He is an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan state prosecutor. He is also a civil rights attorney who has successfully sued members of the NYPD for false arrest and police brutality.

CRIMINAL MISCHIEF

In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the various elements of the crimes of Making Graffiti and Possession of Graffiti Instruments, two charges which often go hand in hand in these types of cases. However, in cases where actual damage is caused to property, arrestees may find themselves faced with the charge of “Criminal Mischief” [Penal Law §145.00] (note that the Graffiti statute only requires intent to damage property, whereas this statute requires actual damage be caused). Once again, any argument that graffiti is “improving” property, absent permission by the property owner, will fail and graffiti that defaces property will be deemed to also damage it. Any damage to property, regardless of the dollar amount of such damage, would fall under Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree, which is a class “A” misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. In cases where damage is alleged to exceed $250.00, the charges may be elevated to Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree, a Class “E” felony which is punishable up to 1 and 1/3 – 4 years in jail for a first time offender. The addition of these charges can sometimes be problematic for those who seek to preserve their records and change the landscape of any plea negotiation.

ENHANCING GRAFFITI PROSECUTIONS

As previously noted, the City has put great effort into preventing the proliferation of graffiti in New York as well as punishing those who create it. The NYPD’s specialized “Vandalism Squad” routinely photographs as much graffiti as they can for the purpose of maintaining a graffiti database. When a person is charged with creating a tag or mural, the detectives will then check to see if an identical tag or mural has been documented in the database and if so, and will then attempt to secure an admission from the suspect that he/she was responsible for making the older graffiti markings as well. Obviously, this can leading to additional charges being filed, which further complicates things for an arrestee, so anyone in such a position should consult with an attorney before making the decision to talk with law enforcement.

THE COURT CASE

Once a graffiti case is passed off to the prosecutor and the case heads to Court, it is common for the government to attempt to seek restitution in the form compensation to the property owner for any cost incurred in undoing the damage caused by the graffiti. Restitution payments can be incorporated in plea deals which may end up being more favorable to those facing graffiti charges, so it is important to have an experienced attorney involved in the process as early as possible to attempt to mitigate the situation. Our team of former prosecutors mounts aggressive campaigns on behalf of each of our clients for the purpose of preserving their liberty, employment and citizenship status. If you have been arrested and charged with any offense involving graffiti or damage to property, do not hesitate to contact one of our former prosecutors at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo for a consultation. We are experience both in prosecuting and defending Graffiti offenses, and are ready to put together a sound strategy on your behalf.

Making graffiti on property without the owner’s permission to do so is a class “A” misdemeanor in New York State, punishable by up to one year in jail. In recent years, the City has stepped up it’s effort to combat graffiti writing and enforce this law, with the New York City Police Department going as far as creating an anti-graffiti task force and offering cash rewards for people who continually violate the graffiti statute.

MAKING GRAFFITI

A person who is accused of making graffiti will, lo and behold, be charged with the crime of “Making Graffiti,” which is defined in Penal Law §145.60(2). This law states that “[n]o person shall make graffiti of any type on any building, public or private, or any other property real or personal owned by any person, firm, or corporation or any public agency or instrumentality, without the express permission of the owner or operator of said property.”

“Graffiti” is defined in Penal Law §145.60(2) as the etching, painting, covering, drawing upon or otherwise placing of a mark upon public or private property with intent to damage such property. In other words, the acts of using a paint pen, a liquid aerosol container, a permanent marker, a pencil, a knife or a chisel to carve a marking out of property are all equally illegal under the graffiti statute. It should be noted that any argument that a graffiti maker merely intended to “improve” the property he/she marked will fail if the owner of the property has not provided consent.

POSSESSION OF GRAFFITI INTRUMENTS

The charge of “Making Graffiti” is usually accompanied by the charge of “Possession of Graffiti Instruments,” which is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to 90 days in jail. According to Penal Law §145.65, graffiti instruments include “any tool, instrument, article, substance, solution or other compound designed to etch, paint, cover, draw upon or otherwise place a mark” if possessed “under circumstances evincing an intent to use the same in order to damage such property.”

In cases where a person is caught in the act of making graffiti with such an instrument, possession with intent to use that instrument to damage such property will be obvious. In cases where individuals are not actually observed using the instrument to make graffiti but are caught possessing something believed to have been used to damage property pursuant to Penal Law §145.60(2), law enforcement may resort to circumstantial methods of proving that the individual intended to use it to damage property. An example would be where a person possesses a marker or aerosol spray can matching the color of graffiti markings on nearby property, or that person has matching paint on his or her fingers, hands or clothing. As always, the easiest way for law enforcement to establish possession with intent (as well as the actual making of the graffiti, for that matter) is to elicit a statement from the individual admitting as such. For this reason, we urge anyone accused of committing a crime to consult with an experience attorney prior to engaging in ANY discussion with law enforcement.

For more information on understanding graffiti arrests, read Part 2 of Understanding the Law of Making Graffiti.

“Understanding the Law of Making Graffiti in New York, Part 1”

DEFINITIONS

A good place to begin understanding the law of fireworks is the definition section of the applicable statute, New York State Penal Law (“PL”) section 270.00.

Subsection 1 of the New York fireworks law distinguishes between “fireworks” and “dangerous fireworks” as follows:

Fireworks, loosely speaking, includes firecrackers, sparklers (yes even sparklers), or “other combustible or explosive of like construction, or any other substances or preparations containing the materials or chemical commonly found in found in what are sold as fireworks.

Dangerous Fireworks would include fireworks capable of causing serious physical injury — meaning an injury which has a substantial risk of death, or serious or protracted disfigurement, impairment of health, or loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ — and which are (i) firecrackers containing more than fifty milligrams of any explosive substance, (ii) torpedoes, (iii) skyrockets and rockets including all devices which employ any combustible or explosive substance and which rise in the air during discharge, (iv) roman candles, (v) bombs, (vi) sparklers more than 10 inches in length or one-fourth of one inch in diameter, or (vii) chasers including all devices which dart or travel about the surface of the ground during discharge.”

Now there are specific exceptions to the definition of fireworks which contain carve-outs for (i) flares, (ii) toy pistols and the like and (iii) certain bank security devices.

OFFENSES

The offenses section of PL 270.00 discuss the crimes associated with possessing or selling fireworks.

Simple Possession: If a person simply possesses less than $50 worth of either fireworks or dangerous fireworks in New York, he or she would be guilty of a violation (not a crime) punishable by up to 15 days in jail, a fine, or both. PL 270.00(2)(b)(i).

Offering for sale or furnishing: If a person offers fireworks or dangerous fireworks for sale or “furnishment,” i.e. making them available to others, not necessarily for compensation, he or she would be guilty of a class B misdemeanor, a crime which would lead to a permanent criminal record and punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a fine, or both. PL 270.00(2)(a).

Offering for sale or furnishing dangerous fireworks to a minor: However, if such person offers for sale or furnishes dangerous fireworks to someone under 18, the crime is elevated to a class A misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail, a fine, or both. Note that this “bump-up” provision only applies to dangerous fireworks. PL 270.00(2)(b)(ii).

Finally, if a person has previously has been convicted of the either “offering” offense noted above within five years of a current arrest, he or she may be subjected to yet another “bump-up” rule which could give rise to felony liability. PL 270.00(2)(b)(iii).

Thus, the takeaway from all of this is that anyone who possesses fireworks on the fourth of July or any other holiday, is subject to summonsing or arrest, depending on the kind and amount of fireworks possessed. Although many Americans are able to enjoy fireworks on Independence Day, New Yorkers are not among them. It is illegal to possess any kind of firework described in the statute, and the police (especially in New York City) will vigorously enforce.

If you have been issued a summons, arrested, or given a desk appearance ticket for a fireworks offense in New York, you should contact experienced criminal defense attorneys who are thoroughly familiar with the fireworks laws in New York.

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.