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.

Reasons for Overturning the Conviction

The appellate court’s 4–3 decision centered on the trial judge’s allowance of testimony from women whose allegations were not part of the formal charges against Weinstein. The court determined that this testimony served no material non-propensity purpose and prejudiced the jury, effectively putting Weinstein on trial for his character rather than specific alleged criminal acts. 

This ruling emphasized the importance of adhering to evidentiary rules that protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial, particularly concerning the admissibility of prior bad acts.

The Retrial

Following the overturning of his conviction, Weinstein’s retrial began on April 23, 2025, in Manhattan. The retrial includes charges related to the alleged assaults of Miriam Haley in 2006 and Jessica Mann in 2013, as well as a new charge involving an unidentified woman from 2006.  Prosecutors argue that Weinstein exploited his significant influence in the entertainment industry to manipulate and assault women. 

Weinstein has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The retrial is expected to last up to six weeks and is being closely watched as a significant case within the broader context of the #MeToo movement. 

Despite the overturned New York conviction, Weinstein continues to serve a 16-year sentence from a 2022 rape conviction in California. 

Despite the negative media perception of Mr. Weinstein, he could actually win this retrial. The witnesses will have to testify again and be cross-examined by skilled attorneys who have access to the transcripts from the prior trial. Inconsistencies in their testimony will be pounced upon by the defense. The defense intends to paint these complaining witnesses as opportunists who only claimed to be victims after their Hollywood dreams fizzled. They will be mercilessly asked about their pursuit of relationships with Mr. Weinstein after the alleged rapes, as evidence that they simply wanted something in exchange from him that they never received. Without the Molineux witnesses that prejudiced the jury at the last trial, there is at least a chance that the jury will have some reasonable doubt this time.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney. He has earned acquittals at trial in sex crimes cases in state and federal courts across New York, and he has frequently commented on the Weinstein case in television and print media. 

The case presents several interesting questions. First, the investigation was uncommonly lengthy. Law enforcement spokespeople explained that “The crime was immediately reported, and the Guernsey County Sheriff’s Office conducted a detailed investigation.” That detailed investigation evidently took over three years to complete, for some reason. This is not the typical length of a rape investigation; indeed, it is an extraordinarily long time to investigate a rape accusation. A few things might have been going on during that three year time period.

First, there might have been DNA to analyze. Not every rape investigation involves DNA evidence, and DNA does not necessarily prove that a rape occurred at all, anyway (as DNA evidence could also indicate a consensual sexual encounter). Generally speaking, though, DNA analyses do not normally take more than a few months to process – it depends entirely on the state laboratory’s backlog.

Law enforcement might have made several attempts to record Mr. Sills making an admission. Oftentimes, after a complainant reports a sexual assault, the complainant wears a police-issued wire and confronts the suspect in person and tries to get him to confess to his crime. On other occasions, they call the suspect on the phone while sitting with police officers who are listening and recording the conversation. These “controlled calls” are done in the hopes of eliciting an incriminating apology, generally. These types of investigative techniques are not violative of suspects’ constitutional rights because the suspects are not in custody. It is unknown whether this happened in Mr. Sills’ case, but it is a common police tactic in these types of investigations.

Law enforcement probably invited Mr. Sills to speak with them with the assistance of his attorney. This is not uncommon for police or prosecutors to do during the course of a sex crimes investigation. In New York City, for example, detectives from the Special Victims Unit have been known to visit the apartments of suspects or call them to say that there has been a complaint and that they would like to “hear their side of the story”. Only idiots would agree to such an interview without consulting with an attorney, of course. Prosecutors in the city have also been known to call suspects and politely suggest that they retain attorneys to speak to them about complaints.

It is unclear from the articles about Mr. Sills’ case whether he “proffered,” or spoke with law enforcement, about the allegations. Certainly, though, that process could have added significant time to the investigation.

In any case, the matter ultimately made its way to a grand jury about three years after the fact. A grand jury is a group of 23 people selected from the community at random (much like trial juries) who sit in a private chamber and hear testimony from witnesses under oath about various criminal cases. Prosecutors present the evidence and respond to questions from the grand jurors. There are no judges inside the chamber, and there are no defendants or defense attorneys. Defendants do typically have the right to testify in their own defense, should they so choose, but they are not otherwise permitted to observe or participate in the proceeding. If a majority of the grand jury believes that there is reasonable cause to believe that a crime has occurred – a much lesser standard of proof than proof beyond a reasonable doubt – then a person becomes indicted, or formally charged with a crime (typically a felony). So, in Mr. Sills’ case, we can safely assume that the complainant testified in the grand jury and was sufficiently convincing to persuade the grand jury to formally charge and arrest Mr. Sills.

The author of this article, Matthew Galluzzo, is a criminal defense attorney and former sex crimes prosecutor in the Manhattan D.A.’s Office.

This sentence is near the top end of the Pennsylvania sentencing guidelines for Cosby. Indeed, the guidelines recommended a sentence of between 22 and 36 months, and Cosby essentially got a sentence of 36 to 120 months. This case illustrates a few issues, probably, as it relates to sentencing. First, remaining defiant in the face of sentencing may feel good to a defendant, but judges hate it. The best way to get leniency is to show remorse and ask forgiveness, and the opposite is absolutely true as well. Cosby may think he is going to be vindicated on appeal, but frankly, I would bet a lot of money that he will not. So, copping an attitude like he did throughout the post-conviction and sentencing phase almost certainly did nothing but cost him a few of his precious remaining years of life in jail. Any smart defendant knows that even if he feels like he was wrongly convicted, the best thing to do at sentencing is say you’re sorry to the judge and victim. Cosby does not appear to be a smart defendant.

Second, judges are human, and this case might demonstrate that. Although he is not supposed to the evidence of Cosby’s prior alleged misdeeds and sexual assaults of other victims (some of whom testified at Cosby’s trial in support of Andrea Constand’s complaint), the judge probably factored those things into consideration in concluding that he was a sexually violent predator worthy of serious detention. It would have been understandably difficult for the judge to ignore those other purported complainants, not to mention the dozens of others who have publicly come forward.

We shall soon know whether Cosby will be forced to report to prison right away or after his appeal has been concluded (of course, if he wins on appeal, he will not be incarcerated unless he is convicted on a retrial). But, barring an unlikely reversal on appeal, it appears quite likely that Cosby will be incarcerated for at least the next three years.

If you or a loved one require the services of an experienced criminal defense attorney, you should strongly consider contacting the attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Matthew Galluzzo, in particular, is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor whose opinion on sex crimes and investigations has been sought after by countless news and televisions reporters over the years.

Per the statute: “A person is guilty of Rape in the Third Degree when: 1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of some factor other than being less than seventeen years old; 2. Being twenty-one years old or more, he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person less than seventeen years old; or 3. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without such person’s consent where such lack of consent is by reason of some factor other than incapacity to consent.”

Subsection 2 is the most common charge, which involves a criminal charge being brought against an older person (21 years old or older) and a complainant younger than 17. Notably, this charge can be brought against the will of the younger party, meaning that it is not necessary for the complainant to “press charges” for the older person to be convicted. Sometimes these charges are proven without the testimony of the younger party by medical evidence or pregnancy, third party witnesses (who catch and observe the people in the act of sexual intercourse), or admissions by the older party.

Sometimes, undercover officers pretend to be minors online and communicate with older men interested in having sexual intercourse with a minor. Those cases sometimes result in those older men being charged with Attempted Rape in the Third Degree, under the theory that the defendants attempted to have sexual intercourse with someone younger than seventeen, but obviously did not because the police officers were not really minors. These charges are nonetheless serious and can result in sex offender registration.

The other two subsections of this charge are vaguer and apply to situations where there is a lack of consent or an incapacity to consent on the part of the alleged victim. Notably, this charge does not apply in situations in which the victims were allegedly “physically helpless,” meaning severely intoxicated, asleep, anesthetized, or in a coma, basically. These other types of “incapacity to consent” include mentally disabled or incapacitated victims, victims in custody of a correctional facility or juvenile placement agency, those undergoing medical or psychological treatment at the moment of the sexual act, and some other hypothetical situations. Thus, it is flat-out illegal for a corrections officer to have sexual intercourse with an inmate, or for a doctor or therapist to have sexual intercourse with a patient during a treatment session, or for anyone to have sexual intercourse with a mentally disabled or incapacitated person. Recently, the outcry over a woman who claims to have been raped by police officers while in their custody caused legislators to propose a bill adding prisoners in police custody to the list of those “incapable of consent” for the purpose of this charge, as well.

Finally, this charge is a serious felony and can be punishable by up to four years in state prison. It also results in registration as a sex offender. If you or a loved one have been arrested or are being investigated for a charge of Rape in the Third Degree, you should strongly consider retaining the services of The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor and has successfully represented dozens of clients against serious charges of rape and sexual assault. He has been quoted as an expert on sex crimes investigations countless times by television and newspaper outlets, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, Fox News, and CBS News, among others.

First and foremost, sex crimes cases involving acquaintances are among the most difficult cases in which to secure convictions. Some talking heads in the media seem to think that this case should have been an easy conviction but that presumption simply belies the reality of what happens in criminal court. These types of cases are inherently challenging for prosecutors for several reasons that were at issue here.

To begin, these “he said/she said” sexual assault cases depend enormously on the credibility of the accuser, and the defense attorneys did everything that they should have done as advocates for their client to raise doubts about Ms. Constand. First, they highlighted her inconsistent statements to law enforcement about the incident. Nothing torpedoes a sex crimes case faster than inconsistent reports from the accuser. After all, inconsistent statements also tend to be made more often by liars than by those telling the truth. Inconsistent statements by the complainant suggest that the complainant has little respect for the truth and thus cannot be trusted to tell it at trial under oath. They also tend to suggest that the complainant has a nefarious agenda that causes him or her to “tailor” her testimony to her audience be perceived more favorably or to increase his/her chances of success. Understandably, defense attorneys always pounce on evidence that suggests those things and they did in this case. Specifically, they argued (as they should have) that the complainant was an attention-seeking, money-grubbing liar who had attempted to minimize her prior contacts and relationship with Cosby when initially making her report to law enforcement in an obvious effort to be perceived more favorably by them. They further argued that she had had a consensual romantic relationship with Cosby and only made a report to police when she did not profit from the relationship in the way that she had hoped.

The other obvious problem for the prosecution in this case is that the complainant did not behave as a perceived “normal victim” after the alleged incident. Rather than immediately run to the police after the incident, or break off all contact with Cosby, Ms. Constand communicated with him frequently and even allegedly gave him a Valentine’s Day gift. Oftentimes, jurors in these cases say to themselves, “well, if he had done that to me, I would have gone straight to the police and never spoken to him again.” Truthfully, though, most victims of sex crimes never report the incidents to law enforcement, let alone report them immediately. When the parties to the case are acquaintances, then it is more typical, in fact, for there to be a delay in the report and/or some gradual unwinding of the relationship prior to the filing of the police complaint. This is especially so in a case like this one in which the facts of what happened may have been initially confusing and unclear to the victim. Unfortunately, misconceptions about “typical responses” from sex crimes victims are widespread. The prosecution did its best in this case to address this problem by presenting an expert witness to testify about the psychology of sex crimes victims (which can cause delays in reports or behavior that might seem counterintuitive to some), but it is likely that these issues nevertheless caused some doubt in the minds of the jurors.

To be sure, there was powerful evidence in favor of a conviction in this case, too. By most accounts, Ms. Constand demonstrated uncommon poise under cross-examination. Observers (including an alternate juror) also remarked that the testimony of the complainant’s mother about Cosby’s apology to her was particularly moving and powerful. Mr. Cosby’s statements to law enforcement and in his deposition were fairly damning; in the least, they were highly suspicious. It is head-scratching to argue, as Cosby’s lawyers did in this case, that a relationship can be consensual but still somehow involve drowsiness-inducing pills to initiate the first act of sexual contact.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, was the testimony of another of Cosby’s alleged victims. She testified that Cosby had abused her in practically the exact the same way, supporting the argument that Cosby had used his unique modus operandus to victimize Ms. Constand. It will be interesting to see whether the trial judge in the second trial will permit more (or fewer) such witnesses to testify at the retrial. The prosecution could conceivably call as many as a dozen such witnesses to testify to this modus operandus, but were prevented from doing so by the trial judge (who must exercise some discretion in deciding how many such “prior bad act” witnesses may testify in a criminal case). One suspects that this could very well make a difference at the retrial. If the prosecution is permitted to call, say, three or four witnesses (instead of one) at the retrial, then the chance of a conviction on the retrial will just simply skyrocket. Of course, a conviction obtained this way could get overturned on appeal as having been an abuse of discretion by the trial judge. The concern among appellate judges would be that Cosby was convicted for a specific crime based not on the evidence that he abused Ms. Constand, but based on evidence that he abused someone not at issue in the trial.

Needless to say, it is entirely possible that some jurors were reluctant to convict an old man in ill health that was once one of the most beloved entertainers in the United States. Frankly, it can be baffling to see Cosby supporters standing outside the courtroom cheering him on during the trial, despite the fact that in the very least, in carrying on questionable affairs with dozens of women (if not outright raping them), Cosby has clearly demonstrated himself to be a terrible husband, tremendous phony, and generally lousy and hypocritical human being (if not much much worse, i.e. a serial rapist). Even his most ardent supporters would have to acknowledge that in reality Cosby is hardly the wholesome family man that he tried to present to the public at the height of his career. Celebrities don’t always benefit from residual admiration, however. Indeed, one can point to the case of Aaron Hernandez, the exalted New England Patriots football star who was convicted of murder on his “home turf” of Boston, as a recent example. Moreover, it is unlikely that the entire jury truly ignored everything it had heard in the media and on TV about Cosby’s dozens of accusers, despite the judge’s specific instructions not to consider those things. To put it plainly, Cosby’s notoriety might have worked both for and against him in this case. Certainly, there must have been at least one juror that was unimpressed by Cosby’s celebrity status and wanted to convict him. (Note: an anonymous juror recently revealed to the New York Post and other sources that ten out of the twelve jurors wanted to convict on two of the three criminal charges).

One of the interesting things about trying cases that the general public doesn’t necessarily realize is just how big of a difference jury selection can make in the outcome. In fact, a different jury might have convicted or acquitted Cosby on the same evidence, plain and simple. Selecting a favorable jury through voir dire is probably one of the most difficult skills for a trial lawyer to master (especially in federal court, where attorneys are not generally permitted to ask direct questions of potential jurors). Few, if any, honest practitioners would claim to have truly mastered that aspect of a trial. The simple fact is that it is actually very difficult to formulate useful opinions of potential jurors after learning only superficial things about them (their education level, their famliy situation, their employment, etc.) and hearing them speak for less than a minute. It is even doubly difficult to predict how a potential juror will respond to certain evidence and arguments. Trial lawyers oftentimes rely upon prepared assumptions and shortcuts in selecting their jurors and those sorts of assumptions are routinely wrong. Assuming, for example, that women will be better prosecution jurors in sex crimes cases is simply a losing strategy for a prosecutor (if anything, a jury full of men might be better for prosecutors in many such cases). The truth is that above all else, prosecutors need jurors with agreeable dispositions. After all, the real challenge for a prosecutor is not just in proving the case but in getting twelve people to agree on the defendant’s guilt. Sadly, when it comes to group decision-making, personalities within the group are oftentimes more important than the thing being decided (or in the case of a trial, the evidence). Individuals with strong personalities are more likely to take contrarian positions for the sake of being contrarians, and a diverse group of strong personalities is unlikely to agree on anything. An article in the New York Daily News offered this interesting tidbit about the Cosby jury from an alternate juror: “We had a hard time deciding where to go for dinner,” he said. “We had so many personalities in the room.” In a nutshell, during the jury selection for the Cosby retrial, the prosecutor might want to more carefully focus on whether the jurors he/she selects to be on the jury can “play nice together,” rather than just whether he/she thinks the individual will find Cosby guilty. Of course, the prosecutor should exclude any potential jurors that demonstrate obvoius bias in favor of Cosby or any hostility towards the criminal justice system, but beyond that, the key in selecting a jury (from a prosecutor’s perspective) is to select a good group of twelve, not a group of twelve good individuals.

To put this idea in different terms, consider the old maxim that “every happy family is alike, and every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” A prosecutor wants a “happy family” that can agree on things. This requires a jury of twelve people that can listen and be open-minded to each other’s ideas and work together as a team to reach a unanimous verdict (after all, a “hung jury” is basically a win for the defense). A defense attorney, on the other hand, tries to assemble a jury that is going to be chaotic (“unhappy”) when deliberating. Strong and outspoken personalities, arrogant and condescending individuals, overly sensitive people, and stubborn people often make great selections as jurors from the perspective of defense attorneys. These types of people tend to cause disagreements in group discussions, become intractable, or refuse to change their mind as a result of perceived “personal attacks” by other jurors.

In any event, the retrial will be interesting to professionals in the criminal justice business. Prosecutors oftentimes do better at retrials, as they have the opportunity to correct their perceived mistakes and present evidence differently. On the flip side, every time a prosecution witness testifies, it creates the possibility that they will make mistakes (i.e. inconsistent statements) under oath upon which defense attorneys can seize. Interestingly, the judge has ordered the jurors not to discuss many of the specific aspects of the deliberations (including the juror vote counts), so it will more difficult than usual for the prosecution to gage its performance. (Note: it is quite common for these sorts of questions to be asked of the jurors following mistrials. Indeed, the “holdout juror” in Etan Patz’s first trial – which ended in a mistrial – gave extensive press interviews about the jury deliberations). That being said, an anonymous juror recently told the press that ten of the twelve jurors wanted to convict Cosby on two of the criminal charges, which strongly suggests that a retrial is more likely to result in a conviction than an acquittal.

For what it’s worth, the author of this post is a criminal defense attorney and former sex crimes prosecutor, and has never lost a sex crimes trial in his career. You can read about some of his sex crimes acquittals here.

In New York civil law, rape, sexual assault and battery are intentional torts (or cause of action) which have one-year statute of limitations, meaning that any such lawsuits must be brought within one year from the date of the alleged violent act. (Note that there is no such thing as battery in New York criminal law – that word has only meaning in the New York civil law context). It should be noted that this statutory period is extended to 5 years, or one year from the termination of the criminal action, in civil cases arising out of various sexual criminal acts.

A guilty plea to a sexual assault case in criminal court can make it especially easy for a victim to pursue a lawsuit against the defendant. After all, a guilty plea is an admission under oath that the assault occurred which can be used against that criminal defendant in a civil lawsuit. After a guilty plea, it is effectively impossible for a criminal defendant to deny that he is liable for a sexual assault against the victim in a civil lawsuit without committing the crime of perjury. In these situations, the only issue to be determined in a civil lawsuit is the amount of money due to the victim, since liability is effectively admitted to.

Conversely, a dismissal of a criminal case does not prevent the complaining witness from pursuing a lawsuit against the defendant. You may recall that the family of Nicole Simpson Brown successfully sued OJ Simpson for a fortune in civil damages after he was acquitted of her murder in a criminal trial. This was possible because the standard of proof in a civil case is lower than it is in criminal court. In criminal court, a person is only guilty of assault if the defendant pleads guilty or if the evidence at trial proves his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the civil context, a person is liable for damages if a jury concludes that the plaintiff has proven his case for assault and battery by a preponderance of the evidence. That latter standard – a preponderance of the evidence – simply means “more likely than not.” Clearly, it is easier to prove that something is “more likely than not” than it is to prove something “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Accordingly, the law does not prevent victims of sexual assault from pursuing civil claims for damages under this lower standard just because the criminal case was dismissed or did not result in a criminal conviction

Once liability is established, damages are then calculated based on the extent of the injuries suffered by the victim of the assault. Categories of typical damages include loss of earnings and wages attributable to the injuries, medical expenses, and pain and suffering (both physical and psychological).

Depending on various factors, a sexual assault lawsuit may be brought in state or federal court. Most are brought in Supreme Court in the state system, but diversity jurisdiction in some circumstances (where a victim and defendant reside in different states) can form the basis for a federal lawsuit instead.

The attorneys at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have successfully defended several individuals sued for rape and sexual assault. Matthew Galluzzo is particularly qualified to handle these cases, having been a prosecutor in the famous Sex Crimes Unit at the Manhattan D.A’s Office (characterized in the television show Law & Order: SVU). He has been called upon countless times by television and news reporters to provide his expertise and insight into rape and sexual allegations, and has been recognized by the governments of the United States and South Africa as a leading expert on the subject.

If you have been arrested for rape or sexual assault, you should strongly consider retaining their services to defend you, as they can handle both the criminal and civil aspects simultaneously. There are obvious advantages to having the same attorneys for both cases, as it cuts down on the expense of having to get a second set of attorneys acclimated to the facts of the case, and also allows for the formulating of an early strategy that keeps both aspects in mind throughout. Additionally, we have worked alongside criminal defense attorneys to defend cases such as these, who appreciate having a knowledgeable civil litigator to advise them throughout the criminal defense process.

On the other hand, if you have been the victim of an rape or sexual assault crime, you may wish to pursue a claim for money damages. The attorneys at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have also assisted individuals in pursuing such claims in civil court, and may be able to assist you as well. Depending upon the circumstances (i.e. the financial circumstances of the defendant and the strength of the evidence), they may be willing to pursue the case on a partial contingency basis, meaning that they accept a reduced hourly rate for their services in exchange for a portion of the recovery, or even possibly a full contingency basis. Their attorneys are uniquely qualified to represent you in these matters, as their team of lawyers consists of former prosecutors that successfully pursued countless assault cases in criminal court, and understand how to prove these types of cases at the higher “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.