an unserialized “ghost gun” seized from a client

🛠️ Defining Ghost Guns and Unserialized Components

Under New York law, a “ghost gun” refers to an unserialized firearm, including both completed and unfinished frames or receivers. An “unfinished frame or receiver” is defined as any material that has been shaped or formed for the purpose of becoming the frame or receiver of a firearm and which may readily be made into a functional frame or receiver through milling, drilling, or other means. 

⚖️ Key Statutes and Offenses

1. Criminal Sale of a Ghost Gun in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 265.60)

• Offense: Knowingly selling, exchanging, giving, or disposing of a ghost gun to another person.
• Exceptions: Not applicable if the individual voluntarily surrenders the ghost gun to law enforcement or, within six months, disposes of it to a licensed gunsmith.
• Penalty: Class E felony.  

2. Criminal Sale of a Ghost Gun in the First Degree (Penal Law § 265.61)

• Offense: Selling, exchanging, giving, or disposing of ten or more ghost guns to another person.
• Exceptions: Similar to the second-degree offense, including voluntary surrender or transfer to a licensed gunsmith within six months.
• Penalty: Class D felony.

3. Criminal Possession of an Undetectable Firearm (Penal Law § 265.01(9))

• Offense: Knowingly possessing a firearm that is not detectable by metal detectors or X-ray machines.
• Penalty: Class D felony. 

🛡️ Legislative Background

In 2021, New York enacted the Jose Webster Untraceable Firearms Act and the Scott J. Beigel Unfinished Receiver Act, which collectively prohibit the possession and sale of ghost guns and their components. These laws also require gunsmiths and dealers to register firearms and unfinished frames or receivers they assemble. 

📌 Enforcement and Legal Precedents

In March 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James secured a $7.8 million judgment against Florida-based retailer Indie Guns for illegally selling ghost gun components in New York. The company was permanently banned from selling such parts in the state.

Additionally, in December 2024, Congressman Ritchie Torres called on Governor Kathy Hochul to close loopholes in New York’s ghost gun laws, particularly concerning the manufacturing of 3D-printed ghost guns, following a high-profile murder involving such a weapon.

📝 Conclusion

New York’s stringent laws aim to curb the proliferation of ghost guns and enhance public safety. Individuals found in violation of these statutes face serious legal consequences, including felony charges and significant penalties. The state’s proactive approach underscores its commitment to addressing the challenges posed by untraceable firearms. Of course, the possession or sale or use of ghost guns can also be prosecuted in federal courts by federal prosecutors under federal law, too.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former Manhattan prosecutor and experienced criminal defense attorney who has successfully defended and represented people arrested for the possession of ghost guns. If you or a loved one have been arrested for this offense in the New York City area, you should strongly consider engaging Matthew Galluzzo to be your attorney.

If you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault or forcible touching in New York City, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced team at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Their lead counsel is a former Manhattan prosecutor with considerable experience representing foreign citizens, with a strong track record of success.

Normally, in federal court, when a defendant chooses to plead guilty, he or she enters into a plea agreement with the prosecutors to establish certain terms and parameters for the sentencing. Plea agreements look like contracts and are usually at least five single-spaced pages long. A defendant acknowledges in the document that he/she is pleading guilty knowingly and voluntarily, and that he/she cannot take back the guilty plea once it has been entered before the court at a plea hearing. The agreements usually set forth the minimum and maximum possible penalties for the charged offenses, so that the defendant can acknowledge that he/she understands them. Also, a defendant agrees to plead guilty to certain charges in the indictment, and admits to certain conduct (for example, an amount of money fraudulently stolen, or a quantity of narcotics trafficked) that impacts the sentencing. Then, the parties to the plea agreement (the prosecutor and the defendant) agree to certain other factors (such as the defendant’s role in the offense, for example) that may establish where on the sentencing chart (for the Federal Sentencing Guidelines) that defendant’s sentence is likely to be. But, the agreements explicitly state that the ultimate decision as to the defendant’s sentence will be up to the sentencing judge to determine, based upon these established facts and parameters within the plea agreement, as well as the judge’s own considerations of the defendant and the defendant’s crime.

Here, in Ms. Loughlin’s case, the sentence has already been established by the agreement. This fact makes the agreement quite unusual for federal court, though hardly unprecedented. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), Ms. Loughlin has agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and in exchange, she will receive a sentence of two months in prison, a fine of $150,000.00, 24 months of supervised release with 100 hours of community service, and a special assessment of $100. The prosecution also will agree to dismiss the remaining charges against Ms. Loughlin and not pursue any further charges in connection with what it knows about this affair. This all depends, however, upon the court accepting the agreement and Ms. Loughlin’s guilty plea.

Basically, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C), the court has to decide whether to accept this agreement with these terms before it will officially count. Tomorrow, during the sentencing hearing, the judge will ask Ms. Loughlin (with her attorney) whether she understands the agreement and its terms, and whether she is pleading guilty knowingly and voluntarily. The judge will then likely ask the prosecutor why the government feels this disposition is appropriate. Then, in the ensuing months, the prosecutor and the defense attorneys will submit written memoranda to the judge about why this disposition is appropriate. The defense memoranda will likely include a statement from Ms. Loughlin and supporting “character letters” from friends and family and people in the community. Ms. Loughlin will also undergo a biographical interview by a federal probation officer (usually a social worker) to be used to prepare a pre-sentence report about Ms. Loughlin for the judge. At the sentencing hearing, the court will indicate once and for all whether it considers the disposition to be appropriate. Assuming the judge does in fact find the disposition appropriate, the judge will sentence Ms. Loughlin as set forth in the agreement. In response, the prosecutor will move to dismiss the remaining criminal charges against Ms. Loughlin. If the court rejects Ms. Loughlin’s plea agreement, then the matter will start over as if Ms. Loughlin had not pleaded guilty.

These Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas can be advantageous in that they tend to provide more certainty for the parties. Normally, defendants plead guilty and find out their sentence at the sentencing date; sometimes the possible sentencing ranges can vary enormously. As a former state prosecutor accustomed to negotiating plea deals with fixed and expected penalties, it has always been somewhat confusing to me about how reluctant federal prosecutors are when it comes to these types of agreements. Federal prosecutors in New York and elsewhere routinely say “our office just doesn’t do that,” when asked about possible Rule 11(c)(1)(C) pleas. For whatever reason, most federal prosecutors just feel far more comfortable having courts decide upon appropriate sentences, rather than negotiate them themselves. Regardless, it seems highly unlikely here that Ms. Loughlin’s plea agreement will be rejected, or that she will not receive the expected sentence. The terms are not out of line with what other defendants in the “Varsity Blues” case have already received, and she might have received a sentence like this one with a “typical” open-ended plea agreement, anyway. Indeed, it might have been possible for her to avoid a prison sentence altogether in this case, but in light of the sentences handed out to other defendants by this court, it was probably in Ms. Loughlin’s best interests to eliminate the downside risk of receiving a more significant prison sentence by negotiating for this Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea.

If you or a loved one have been charged with federal mail or wire fraud, you should strongly consider contacting an experienced federal criminal defense attorney. Matthew Galluzzo, a former Manhattan prosecutor, regularly represents federal criminal defendants in federal courts across the country, and is a member of the Criminal Justice Act panels for both the Southern and Eastern District Courts of New York.

The case began as many federal investigations do – with an undercover cooperator. Somehow, law enforcement investigators with the FBI identified William Rick Singer, the founder and chief executive officer of a nonprofit “college placement organization” called the Key, as a person engaged in unlawful activity. Though the precise details have not yet been shared, it is clear that they ultimately confronted him with the evidence of his illegal activity and made a deal with him: cooperate against the people who had enlisted his help in order to minimize his eventual punishment.

Mr. Singer then started recording his telephone calls and conversations with his criminal clients. Those calls apparently revealed a wide-ranging series of scams designed to get students into the schools of their choice. For example, Singer arranged for students who had struggled on the college entrance exams to get favorable disability diagnosis from an enlisted medical professional so as to get more time to take their tests. Then, he also arranged for the prospective students to take their college placement tests under the supervision of a paid-for proctor who either corrected their answers or permitted someone else to take their tests for them. Singer made arrangements to have students appear to be successful athletes when they were not, or flat-out bribed college athletic coaches into agreeing to tell the admissions office that they needed the students for their college sports teams. Some of the college coaches were allegedly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to fraudulently accept students onto their teams (and therefore, into the school) without the relevant athletic credentials.

The evidence against some of these parents is going to be overwhelming and devastating. Of course the FBI is in possession of numerous recorded conversations about the details of the scheme, as well as emails and text messages, between the conspirators. There will inevitably be bank records and wire transfers showing the “donations” made by the parents to Singer in furtherance of the scheme. Some of the messages will be particularly damning; for example, the co-chairman of the international law firm Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, Gordon Caplan, is charged with paying Singer to help his daughter improve her college entrance exam scores, among other things. Caplan was allegedly recorded stating that he had no problem with the moral implications of his actions, but was only concerned about the consequences should he be caught. Statements like those make it virtually impossible to prevail at trial.

Some of these defendants may attempt to argue that they were unaware of what exactly they were paying Singer to do, or that there were other unrecorded conversations that paint their understandings in a different light. However, assuming that these defendants all eventually plead guilty, the next question is the sentencing exposure for the defendants. (Note: the ultimate charges are likely to be violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and/or 1346).

The crimes with which these defendants are charged – mail/wire and honest services fraud – do not carry mandatory minimum prison sentences, meaning that they could receive non-incarceratory sentences. The sentencing judge will be required to consider the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in deciding how to sentence them, but the judge need not be bound by the recommendations set forth by those Guidelines. Most defendants can realistically expect to be sentenced within the Guidelines unless there are mitigating factors justifying a downward departure or reduction in the sentence.

The Sentencing Guidelines include a table with an X and Y axis that helps judges determine the appropriate sentence for a defendant. On the X axis lies the criminal history of the defendant. Given that the defendants appears to be wealthy professionals, it is probably safe to assume that they will all be classified as having the lowest criminal history score, Level I. On the Y-axis is the factor called the sentencing level, which corresponds to the seriousness of the crime.

To calculate the Guidelines sentencing level in a fraud case, one looks to 2B1.1 of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The base offense level would be 6 in this case, and then the level is increased according to the amount of money at issue in the fraud. Here, with the parents having allegedly donated from between $200,000 and $6.5 million in fraudulent payments, the sentencing levels would be increased anywhere from 12 to 18 levels, resulting in base offense levels between 18 and 24. Typically, when one pleads guilty in federal court, however, a judge will credit a defendant with a 2-3 level reduction in sentencing level for “acceptance of responsibility”. U.S.S.C. § 3E1.1 (the 3 level reductions are for base offense levels at level 16 or higher). Thus, the defendants in this case might be getting sentenced in the range of Level 10-15. At Level 10, the Guidelines recommend a sentence of 6-12 months in prison, and at Level 15, they recommend a sentence of between 18-24 months in prison. Admittedly, there may be other factors that could influence the base offense level calculation, but that is a reasonable estimate at this stage.

Some people may scoff and say that there is no way that wealthy and powerful parents will actually go to federal prison. They may have a point. Pursuant to Section 3551, a judge is supposed to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to advance the interests of sentencing. A good argument can be made that these individuals do not need to be incarcerated to protect the public. These defendants have been publicly shamed, and some, like Gordon Caplan, are likely to suffer other significant punishments, like disbarment. However, a judge needs to promote a healthy respect for the law, and arguably these defendants brazenly and knowingly cheated the system. Prison sentences may be necessary to send the appropriate message to other people thinking about trying to unlawfully bribe their children into an elite university. Also, the recent prison sentences imposed in the somewhat-comparable college basketball federal scandal suggest that these parents could realistically be looking at short but meaningful prison sentences.

The author, Matthew Galluzzo, is a former Manhattan prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney with the law firm of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. He regularly represents defendants in federal criminal cases throughout the United States. He most often practices in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, where he is a member of the Criminal Justice Act panels.

P.L. § 245.01 – Exposure of a Person

We’ll deal with this one first. Simply put, Exposure of a Person makes it a violation to expose one’s private parts in public. This statute is fairly straight forward enough.

Public Lewdness is just slightly more complicated…

P.L. § 245.00 – Public Lewdness

“Public Lewdness” generally applies when a person (a) in a public place, or (b) on private premises which may readily be observed from another private premises, (c) exposes the private or intimate parts of his or her body in a lewd manner, or (d) commits any lewd act. Lewd acts are not specifically defined in the Penal Law. The way the Public Lewdness statute is structured, a person need not be accused of actually exposing him or herself in order to be accused of violating it. For example, a person may be charged with this misdemeanor by masturbating over his clothes in a public place.

New York is rife with public places. A “public place” is defined as “one that is visible to a member of the passing public.” Common public places where defendants find themselves accused of engaging in lewd behavior are: bars, clubs, subway cars or platforms, lobbies or hallways, urinals or public transportation facility bathroom stalls (such as Penn Station or Port Authority), parks and vehicles.

Public Lewdness is a Class B misdemeanor which means being convicted of P.L. § 245.00 carries the following consequences:

• The accused is left with a permanent criminal record, with the added stigma of the Penal Law title being humiliating in nature;
• The conviction must be disclosed when the accused is asked if he/she has ever been convicted of a crime;
• The potential for up to 3 months of incarceration;
• The possibility of a term of Probation;
• Mandatory surcharges and victim assistance fees;
• Mandatory production of a DNA sample to be uploaded into New York’s Database for first time offenders.

Defending Public Lewdness and Exposure of a Person:

Pubic Lewdness and Exposure of a person are often charged together, since people accused of engaging in lewd acts are often concurrently alleged to have exposed themselves. If you find yourself charged with one or both, after either being brought to Central Booking or being issued a Desk Appearance Ticket, you should contact a lawyer immediately, for a myriad of reasons.

First, you’re being charged with a crime. Whether you have a voluminous criminal record or none at all, no one in jeopardy of criminal punishment should be without counsel. You can’t fight these charges – which are being brought by the NYPD and the local District Attorney – by yourself.

Second, just because you’ve been accused of a crime does not mean you deserve to be convicted of one. A good lawyer is going to fully debrief you on the facts of the case, explore any rushes to judgment or mistakes law enforcement may have made, highlight any flaws in their proof, and/or prepare mitigation on your behalf in an attempt to secure a result you can live with. These are tasks that an experienced criminal defense attorney should perform.

Every case is different, and every client is different. Although you may be accused of committing these fairly common crimes, there is a unique and custom-fit defense which needs to be prepared or you. Our team of former veteran prosecutors are experienced in dealing with the people who are tasked with prosecuting you, and know exactly what type of regimen needs to be put in place to secure the best result on your behalf. If you or a loved one is in the unfortunate situation of being faced with Public Lewdness and/or Exposure of a Person, call us now. Our professional team isn’t here to judge you – only to help.

So what constitutes substantial pain and what does not? The Court of Appeals has found sufficient evidence of substantial pain in the following instances:

• Where victim was struck with a baseball bat resulting in discoloration, swelling and lost sensation to arm;
• Where victim sustained a 1.5 inch laceration from a bullet which was redressed at the hospital and which was still oozing when treated;
• Where lacerations to eye and hand resulted in “permanent spots” on hand and “terrible pain” after having been tripped, sat on, kicked and cut with knife;
• Where victim lost consciousness, sustained contusions to neck, experienced pain, had difficulty swallowing and was prescribed medicine after being choked; and
• Where suffered pain and symptoms for three to five weeks from a concussion and laceration to head, bruises and sprains, and a bruised and swollen foot.

It is important to note that in each case where substantial pain was found to exist, the Court pointed to some objective evidence to support the finding.

Conversely, the Court of Appeals has ruled that the following allegations set forth were insufficient to establish substantial pain:

• Where incidental reference to a black eye without any development of its appearance, seriousness, accompanying swelling or suggestion of pain was made;
• Where victim cried, felt an unspecified degree of pain and sustained a red mark after being hit twice by defendant;
• Where victim suffered a one centimeter cut above her lip; and
• Where the victim experienced swelling and redness which persisted for a week, without a specified level of pain.

While the determination of the existence of “substantial pain” is generally one for a jury, the prosecution is not entitled to simply plead the existence of “substantial pain” in a conclusory manner in order to escape sufficiency scrutiny. In other words, the injury must stand up to some form of objective scrutiny. For this reason, it is important for the attorney of a defendant charged with assault to review the charging document for sufficiency, and prepare a detailed motion to dismiss or reduce the charges where appropriate. Most of the cases we handle involve allegations which fall somewhere in between the two categories described above. Since each case is different, it is up to us to craft a convincing argument as to why a particular case should fall in the second category as opposed to the first. The success of such a motion can greatly alter the trajectory of a criminal case, and not only reduce the top count maximum exposure by 9 months in jail (from a class “A” to a class “B” misdemeanor) but also convince a prosecutor to make a more favorable plea offer or even dismiss the criminal charges entirely.

If you have been accused of committing the crime of assault in any degree, it is imperative you consult with an experienced lawyer immediately. The stakes are high in these cases and prosecutors take them very seriously. They carry the potential for jail as well as a permanent criminal record if not properly defended. Attacking the sufficiency of the charges is one of several strategies our team of former prosecutors employs when fighting for our clients, so don’t hesitate to reach out to us if you find yourself accused of this crime.

Assault in the Third Degree lies in Penal Law 120.00, which states that a person can be guilty of that charge in the following three situations:

1. When, with intent to cause physical injury to another person, he or she causes such injury to such person or to a third person; or

2. He or she recklessly causes physical injury to another person; or

3. With criminal negligence, he or she causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.

The vast majority of alleged assaults fall within the ambit of subsection (1), however subsection (2) is usually charged as an alternate theory to the same conduct for which subsection (1) applies. Thus, a person who punches another person causing some form of injury will usually be charged will violating PL 120.00(1) (for intentionally causing physical injury) and PL 120.00(2) (for recklessly causing physical injury). The common denominator for all three subsections of Assault 3 is “physical injury,” which is defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.

As defense attorneys, we are charged with the duty of attacking our cases from every viable angle. This may not only include a challenge to the allegation that our client was actually the person who did the assaulting, but also a challenge to the “sufficiency” of the allegation of injury. In other words, we argue that the injury alleged to have occurred does not even rise to the level of a misdemeanor, regardless of who caused it. A more specific challenge we might employ involves an assertion that the prosecutor’s allegations do not legally make out “substantial pain.” (Similar arguments are made up the chain as the threshold level of injury increases for Assault 2 and 1, respectively).

How is this done? When a defendant is formally charged with assault, he/she is arraigned on the charges and their attorney provided a copy of the charging instrument, usually referred to as the criminal court complaint. This complaint contains a brief summary of allegations which serves the purpose of putting the defense on notice of the nature of the case. For example, a complaint might state, in relevant part, that the defendant was observed “punching (the victim) several times about the head with a closed fist thereby causing (the victim) to sustain a bloody lip, a laceration below the eye and substantial pain.” A less severe complaint might state that the defendant was observed striking the victim numerous times “with his hand, causing redness to the (victim’s) face and substantial pain.”

Of critical importance is the fact that the Court of Appeals (New York’s highest Court) has held that a victim’s subjective description of an injury will not always be sufficient to support a finding of physical injury, and that injuries are to be looked at objectively as well. This rule exists to prevent a complaint stating the “victim” experienced substantial pain after being slapped with a feather from sufficiently stating a case for assault.

So which types of cases have been held to have sufficiently plead physical injury and which have not? We discuss that and more here in Part II.

First, let’s explain to you what your Desk Appearance Ticket (“DAT”) is.

The Criminal Procedure Law defines the DAT as “a written notice issued and subscribed by a police officer or other public servant authorized by state law…directing a designated person to appear in a designated local criminal court at a designated future time in connection with his alleged commission of a designated offense.” In other words, if you’ve received a DAT, you’re being directed to appear in Criminal Court where you should expect to be formally prosecuted as a defendant. People are often mislead by DATs because they think they were stopped by the police and then “let go.” The reality is that very serious misdemeanors such as Assault and Criminal Possession of a Weapon are often charged following the issuance of a DAT. While it might be tempting to think that the charge “can’t be that serious” since you were “only given a ticket,” nothing could be farther from the truth. To be sure, your failure to appear on a scheduled Court date will result in the issuance of a warrant for your arrest. So it is absolutely imperative that you appear on your Court date.

“What should I expect when I go to Court?” The DAT is a legal mechanism to bring you to Court to face criminal charges, so you have to prepare yourself to assume the role of a defendant in a criminal action once you get there. If you’ve received a DAT, it’s because a member of law enforcement has accused you of breaking the law – which means a local prosecuting agency is going to prosecute you when you get to Court. You should expect to appear before a Judge and be formally charged by formal accusatory instrument which is provided to the defense on that day (which is why it’s necessary to be represented by counsel).

“What am I being charged with?” If you’ve already been issued a DAT, take a look in the upper left hand corner, under your name and address. You should see a line that says “Top Offense Charged” and then the letters “PL” followed by some numbers. The numbers correspond to the section of the Penal Law that you have been accused of violating. Some common Penal Law numbers on DATs are “120.00” (Assault), “155.25” (Petit Larceny), “220.03” (Criminal Possession of a Controlled Substance in the Seventh Degree), and “265.04” (Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree), just to name a few (the Penal Law sections mentioned here are all Class “A” misdemeanors, punishable by up to 1 year in jail). It’s important to keep in mind that the DAT only has space for your top count, so it’s not uncommon for defendants to appear in Court only to find that they’re being charged with additional violations of the Penal Law.

“So do I need a lawyer?” Yes. We can see how you may have beeen lulled to sleep by the fact that you were arrested and released “with just a piece of paper.” Or perhaps you thought the situation was less serious since they weren’t “put through the system” and held in jail for 24 hours before coming out before a Judge. Hopefully you now understand that the DAT process simply allows you to make your appearance at a later date, while the same stakes and penalties that come with being criminally charged apply.

If you or a loved one have received a Desk Appearance Ticket, do not hesitate to reach out to The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo; our team of former prosecutors and experienced criminal defense attorneys can help extricate you from the case as soon as possible.

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.

In Manhattan, specifically, most arrestees are brought downtown to the 100 Centre Street Courthouse to face charges. However a smaller number of defendants are directed to appear in Manhattan’s Midtown Community Court which is located at 314 West 54th Street in Manhattan. In this blog, we cover some of the Midtown Community Court basics to shed light on what should be expected for those who find themselves in the unfortunate predicament of having to fight a charge or charges there.

Midtown Community Court was launched in 1993 with the primary objective of dealing with quality-of-life offenses, so most of the cases involve misdemeanors and/or violations. Examples of some of the common charges you are likely to face in Midtown Community Court include:

Prostitution;

Illegal Vending (Unlicensed General Vendor and/or Counterfeit Trademarking);

Making Graffiti;

Shoplifting;

Drug Possession;

Farebeating; and

Property Damage and Vandalism.

While very few arrestees are “booked” and brought through the system before they appear in Midtown Community Court (although some are), most are issued DAT’s or summons.

As we have pointed out in previous blogs, it is absolutely imperative not to disregard a DAT or summons if you receive one, since failure to appear in Court results in an arrest warrant being created. Some people are lulled to sleep by the fact that they were “only” issued a ticket and either forget or disregard it’s mandate to appear several weeks or months later.

Next, anyone who is arrested and directed to appear in Midtown Community Court should consult with a criminal defense attorney prior to appearing to face criminal charges. We cannot emphasize enough how important this is, lest defendants appear and plead guilty to something that may leave them with a permanent criminal record, and/or cause them to jeopardize their careers and/or citizenship status.

When you do attend your Court date, you are going to want to bring an attorney with you for the purpose of securing a non-criminal disposition on your behalf; in other words, a case result that preserves your record and keeps it clean of any criminal conviction. Our team of former prosecutors are familiar with the judges, court staff and infrastructure of the Midtown Community Courthouse, and have an excellent track record of securing such results there. Additionally, defendant’s appearing in Midtown Community Court should prepare themselves for dispositions which involve the completion of community service, enrollment in on-site social services such as drug treatment, job training and/or mental health counseling. The important thing to note is that every case is different, and often dispositions need to be reached which are custom-made for each individual client, which is why it is all the more important to consult with an attorney before making the appearance.

If you have received a summons or desk appearance ticket for Midtown Community Court or in any other court in the greater New York City area, you should contact attorneys who have experience in Midtown Community Court as well as the more traditional criminal courts. Taking steps now to preserve your record can mean the difference between losing your job, your liberty, or your citizenship status, so it’s best to be diligent and consult with attorneys who can help you.