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.

Common Desk Appearance Tickets from JFK Airport include 1) shoplifting offenses (Petit Larceny – PL 155.25, a Class A misdemeanor) at the JFK retail shops or duty-free stores, 2) misdemeanor possession of controlled substances (PL 220.03), 3) misdemeanor possession of a weapon, such as a knife or collapsable baton or brass knuckles (PL 265.01), 4) theft of services, such as failing to pay a bar or restaurant tab (PL 165.15), and 5) assault (PL 120.00, a Class A misdemeanor). However, there are many other possible offenses at JFK Airport that could result in Desk Appearance Tickets.

A Desk Appearance Ticket is the same thing as a criminal arrest and a conviction for a misdemeanor can give you a permanent and public criminal record. It can also potentially result in jail time, probation, fines, loss of employment, loss of immigration status, and loss of licensure, depending on the circumstances. These DATs must be taken seriously, as should any criminal arrest. Matthew Galluzzo has successfully helped over 100 clients earn dismissals in cases involving Desk Appearance Tickets, and has specifically helped over a dozen clients with charges stemming from JFK Airport.

Generally, a person who receives a Desk Appearance Ticket from JFK Airport must appear in Queens Criminal Court (located at 125-01 Queens Boulevard) as instructed by the ticket. Sometimes these court dates occur on weekends. Of course, many of the people arrested in JFK are travelers from out of town or even out of the country. In certain types of cases, Matthew Galluzzo has successfully appeared of behalf of many out-of-town and foreign clients and resolved these cases favorably without the clients having to appear personally. If you are a foreign or out-of-town client with a JFK Desk Appearance Ticket, you should strongly consider hiring Matthew Galluzzo to appear on your behalf, so that you do not have to make a special trip back to New York City just to appear in court to resolve a misdemeanor offense.

Unlike most of the other charges in Chapter 220 of the Penal Law, this particular charge focuses on the value of the narcotics, rather than the weight or quantity of the narcotics. Of course, the value of a quantity of narcotics can be easily disputed. Interestingly, this charge also aggregates the narcotics trafficking over time, whereas most state-court drug cases involve single transactions. Also, many times, charges are brought without sufficient proof that the accused played a supervising role in an actual organization.

This Class A-I felony drug charge carries serious potential prison sentences, as even someone without a criminal record faces a minimum 15 years in prison, with a maximum of 25 years.

Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor, has extensive experience representing individuals accused of large-scale narcotics trafficking offenses in state and federal court. If you or a loved one have been accused of Operating as a Major Trafficker, you should strongly consider contacting him to discuss the case.

Mr. Galluzzo worked with a social worker to describe the client’s extremely difficult upbringing, which included parental abuse, poverty, homelessness, the foster care system, and drug abuse as a pre-teen. Mr. Galluzzo convinced the judge that pursuant to the recent Second Circuit decision in US v. Gibson, the client was not a Career Offender under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines despite his two prior convictions for NY Penal Law Section 220.39, resulting in his classification as a Criminal History Category IV instead of VI. He also convincingly described the overdose as a terrible accident and expressed his client’s remorse to the judge.

Ultimately, the Court granted a significant downward variance and gave him a sentence equal to roughly half that recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines, 120 months (10 years). The client was pleased with the result and felt that his voice had been heard. The case was US v. Huertero, 20-cr-580 (ER) before Judge Ramos.

If you or a loved one are facing federal narcotics charges resulting in an overdose, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. A former federal prosecutor, he has experienced litigating against government prosecutors attempting to prove that defendants are responsible for fatal overdoses, and has effectively cross-examined scientific expert witnesses (doctors, toxicologists, pathologists, etc.) on the subject. He also knows how to effectively present requests for merciful treatment from sentencing judges. Give him a call to schedule a consultation.

Mr. Galluzzo practices primarily in the New York City area, as well as the federal courts of Connecticut, White Plains (NY), and New Jersey. However, he is also able to defend federal criminal cases in other jurisdictions under certain circumstances.

The client, an attorney, was originally issued a summons by a park ranger for allegedly engaging in obscene conduct in a federal park in Fire Island. The summons suggested that he should resolve the case by paying a fine. However, such a guilty plea through the mail would have resulted in him being convicted of a federal misdemeanor crime. The client instead elected to go to court with Mr. Galluzzo as his counsel.

At the first appearance in federal court, Mr. Galluzzo spoke to prosecutors about the client’s exceptional background and the impact that a criminal conviction would have on his future and his career. The prosecutor was thus persuaded to dismiss the criminal charges in exchange for a $50 fine, which the client was happy to pay to resolve the matter.

So, rather sustain a permanent and public criminal record by paying the fine, the client had his federal criminal charges dismissed and there will be no public record of the case. If you or a loved one have been issued a summons for a federal misdemeanor, you should strongly consider contacting an experienced criminal defense attorney to assist you. It may seem like no big deal to plead guilty or pay a fine, but the consequences for your criminal record – including your career, your immigration status, and your future – could be jeopardized by such a decision.

Specifically, Cuomo will be charged with one count of Forcible Touching, in violation of Penal Law Section 130.52.* That code makes it a class A misdemeanor to intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose:

1. forcibly touch the sexual or other intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading or abusing such person, or for the purpose of gratifying the actor’s sexual desire; or

2. subject another person to sexual contact for the purpose of gratifying the actor’s sexual desire and with intent to degrade or abuse such other person while such other person is a passenger on a bus, train, or subway car operated by any transit agency, authority or company, public or private, whose operation is authorized by New York state or any of its political subdivisions.

For the purposes of this section, forcible touching includes squeezing, grabbing or pinching.

The crime carries up to one year in jail as a maximum punishment, though jail is not mandatory. A person convicted of this crime can also be sentenced to community service, a conditional discharge, or probation, among other things. The first conviction for this crime does not trigger sex offender registration, but the second does. That fact may prove important for Cuomo as there are other complainants and possible criminal charges potentially awaiting him in the future. Should he be convicted of this charge, and then convicted of another similar charge in the future, then he would become a registered sex offender.

It is difficult to predict whether Cuomo would prevail in this case at trial. Obviously, he is a well known political figure and he has been the subject of tremendous publicity concerning these allegations, so it will be difficult to find an unbiased jury in New York. Also, the other interesting variable for trial will be whether other complainants who have made accusations against Mr. Cuomo will be allowed to testify in this matter regarding the groping at the governor’s mansion. This issue of Molineux witnesses, as they are sometimes called, in sexual misconduct cases, is a subject of tremendous disagreement amongst lawyers and judges. Prosecutors recognize that these witnesses can be extremely powerful (see, e.g. the cases of Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, in which the key to conviction was the fact that multiple witnesses testified about similar conduct by the defendants). Defense attorneys see this sort of “gang tackling” with multiple cases and complaints being presented at once as being violative of due process and constitutional protections. Regardless of where you fall on that issue, there is no doubt that Cuomo’s chances will almost certainly hinge on whether he is permitted to simply defend against one complainant, or whether the jury will hear from several of his alleged victims at once.

Matthew Galluzzo is a former prosecutor from the Manhattan Sex Crimes Unit. As a defense attorney, he has won stunning victories in groping cases in both state and federal court.

*Cuomo will likely also be charged with Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree and other related misdemeanors.

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.

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Thus, a person who was convicted of a criminal charge carrying a potential maximum penalty of one year – typically a felony – can be charged under federal law for possessing a firearm, even if the person was not in fact previously sentenced to a year or more in prison.

It is important to understand that possession is not the same as ownership. Possession can also be constructive, meaning that people can possess firearms in their homes, their cars, their places of employment, or their storage lockers, for example, without even being physically present at the time of the discovery of the firearms. If law enforcement can prove that a person has access to a firearm, and potential control over that firearm, then the person can be found to be in possession of it. Possession need not be exclusive either – under the law, multiple people can possess the same firearm. Indeed, it is common for all of the passengers in a vehicle to be charged with possessing a single firearm in a vehicle.

Determining the penalties for a violation of this crime are complicated and depend largely upon the individual’s criminal history. However, absent other aggravating factors, straight possession of firearm by a felon has a maximum penalty of 10 years. 18 U.S.C. § 924.

If you or a loved one have been arrested for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922g, you should strongly consider retaining the services of the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Mr. Galluzzo is an experienced federal criminal defense attorney and a former prosecutor. He defends relentlessly against the prosecution and advocates fiercely for his clients. Give him a call to discuss your case.

(2) who is a fugitive from justice;

(3) who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

(5) who, being an alien –

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or

(B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;

(8) who is subject to a court order that –

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime 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.

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.

In these cases, federal law generally requires the agents to send a notice to the person from whom the cash was seized. The person who receives the notice is typically given the opportunity to make a claim for the cash, which includes an explanation as to the source of the cash. This response must be made under penalty of perjury, and can include supplemental documentation from a related business (such as tax returns or bank statements), or sworn statements from other people, among other things. Every once in awhile, the agents return the cash to the claimant based upon the representations made by the claimant, or based upon the evidence demonstrated to the agency. Our attorneys have successfully assisted clients in getting cash returned by federal agents this way.

If, however, the agency refuses to return the money based upon these representations, then they must commence a civil forfeiture action in federal court. The precise procedures for doing so are outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 983. Ultimately, in a civil court proceeding, the federal agency (DEA) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the seized cash represents proceeds of illegal activity. This is the civil standard for proof and it is much lower (easier) than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard necessary to prove a person’s guilt of a crime.

Of course, the DEA may also elect to arrest the claimant as a co-conspirator to narcotics trafficking or money laundering. In that case, the DEA and federal prosecutor (U.S. Attorney) can add a forfeiture count to the indictment, and a civil forfeiture proceeding no longer becomes necessary.

The person considering whether to respond to this initial seizure notice has many things to consider. First, the response has to be made under oath. Thus, a false statement relating to the seized cash is punishable as a federal crime pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Second, the claimant should carefully consider the circumstances under which the cash was seized. They should ask themselves: how did the DEA agents know that there was cash to be seized? Did they simply stumble upon it, or has there been a long-term investigation with wiretaps, cooperating witnesses, and/or surveillance that led them to make this cash seizure? The latter is normally more likely. Of course, it could be suspicious for a claimant to let DEA agents seize a huge quantity of cash without any protestations – after all, if, say, one million dollars in cash were lawfully obtained, wouldn’t the owner want it back?

Ultimately, the top priority for someone whose cash has been seized by the DEA should be avoiding an arrest or an indictment by federal authorities. Thus, any response to a seizure notice should be made after careful discussion with a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney. Matthew Galluzzo, an experienced criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor, has assisted many clients in these sorts of matters and is prepared to assist you or a loved one as well.

The crime of wire fraud occurs when someone voluntarily and intentionally uses an interstate communications device (such as a telephone) as a part of any scheme to defraud another of property, or anything else of value.

The main criminal statutes that apply to wire fraud are 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1349. Those statues refer to fraud by wire, radio, or television.

Section 1343 defines as guilty of wire fraud: “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster ….. or emergency or affects a financial institution.”

Therefore, to be criminally culpable under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, a defendant must have intentionally and voluntarily used a communication device that sends information over state lines as part of a scheme to defraud another out of money or other valuables. It can involve the use of a landline telephone, cell phone, computer, tablet, or another electronic device.

U.S.C. 1349 applies to attempts to commit wire fraud. Indeed, “[a]ny person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.”

A person could be charged with wire fraud if the following four elements of the crime are established: (i) the person voluntarily or intentionally participated in or devised a scheme to defraud someone of money or other valuables; (ii) the person did so with the intent to defraud the person. Moreover (iii) It was reasonably foreseeable that interstate wire communications would be used, (iv) in the scheme.

The wire fraud statute does not make an explicit reference to materiality. Yet materiality is an element of the offense, because at the time of the statutes’ enactment, the word “defraud” was understood to “require a misrepresentation or concealment of [a] material fact.” Thus, other than in an honest services context, a “scheme to defraud” for mail or wire fraud purposes must involve a material misrepresentation of some kind. material if it is capable of influencing the intended victim.”

Wire fraud can involve many different schemes to defraud a person using electronic communications such as emails, webpages, and social media. The federal wire fraud statute specifically mentions wire, radio, and television communications, but it also includes many fraud offenses involving computers and the internet. The information transmitted can be any writes, signs, signals, pictures or sounds used in the scheme to defraud. In order for wire fraud to take place, the person must voluntarily and knowingly make misrepresentations of facts with the intent to defraud someone of money or property.

Fraudsters use various methods to get personal credentials and passwords including:

• Malware: Malware (short for “malicious software”) is designed to gain access, damage or disrupt a computer without the knowledge of the owner.
• Phishing: Phishing is a scam typically carried out through unsolicited email and/or websites that pose as legitimate sites and lure unsuspecting victims to provide personal and financial information.
• Vishing and Smishing: Thieves contact bank or credit union customers via live or automated phone calls (known as vishing attacks) or via text messages sent to cell phones (smishing attacks) that may warn of a security breach so as to obtain account information, PIN numbers and other account information they need to gain access to the account.
• Accessing Email Accounts: Hackers gain illicit access to an email account or email correspondence through spam, computer virus, and phishing.

For example, creating a webpage to ask for donations for a charity or a personal tragedy that is fraudulent could be prosecuted as a wire fraud. Moreover, stealing bank and other financial information to transfer money out of a person’s bank and other financial accounts, to make charges on his credit cards, or to take out credit cards in his name, or sending a mass email to a person’s email contacts with a tragic story as to why the person needs money immediately are other examples of wire fraud.

Wire fraud is a federal crime. Since November 1, 1987, federal judges have used the Federal Sentencing Guidelines to determine the sentence of a guilty defendant. A judge will look at the “base offense level” and then adjust the sentence based on the specific characteristics of the crime. With all fraud offenses, the base offense level is six. However, other factors will then influence that number, including, for example, the dollar amount stolen, how much planning went into the crime and the victims that were targeted.

Thus, for example, a wire fraud scheme that involved the theft of $300,000 through an intricate scheme to take advantage of the elderly will score higher than a wire fraud scheme that an individual planned in order to cheat their employer out of $1,000.

Other factors that will influence the final sentencing “score” include the defendant’s criminal history, whether or not the defendant tried to impede the investigation, and whether the defendant willingly helped investigators catch other people involved in the crime.

Usually, a person convicted of wire fraud faces significant potential penalties. A single act of wire fraud can result in fines and up to 20 years in prison. However, if the wire fraud scheme affects a financial institution or is connected to a presidentially declared disaster or emergency, the potential penalties are fines of up to $1,000,000 and up to 30 years in prison.

If you or a loved one have been accused of a federal wire fraud charge, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced federal criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo.

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree when:

(1) He or she possesses any firearm, electronic dart gun, electronic stun gun, gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle knife, cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles, chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type slingshot or slungshot, shirken or “Kung Fu star”; or

(2) He or she possesses any dagger, dangerous knife, dirk, machete, razor, stiletto, imitation pistol, or any other dangerous or deadly instrument or weapon with intent to use the same unlawfully against another;

Criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree is a class A misdemeanor. (Note: there are other subsections of this charge that are far less common than these two subsections). The maximum penalty is one year in jail, and a conviction for these charge can have negative immigration consequences for non-citizens residing in the United States.

Thankfully, these cases can often be successfully defended by a savvy lawyer. Sometimes, an experienced criminal defense attorney can litigate the legality or constitutionality of the police search that yielded the weapon in the first place, potentially resulting in a dismissal of all charges. We have also once successfully obtained an acquittal for a client by persuading a jury with a technical argument that the knife seized from his client was not in fact a gravity knife (as alleged by the prosecutor). Most often, though, clients seek to negotiate reasonable dispositions for these cases that do not result in permanent criminal records or immigration consequences. The attorneys at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have successfully negotiated favorable results or dismissals dozens of times by demonstrating to prosecutors the good characters or backgrounds of their clients. If you or a loved one have been charged with possessing a weapon, you should contact them immediately.

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.

Mr. Baldwin was arrested in November after allegedly punching someone over a parking spot in Manhattan. Mr. Baldwin generally denied punching the other person though he admitted to pushing him. Baldwin was actually given a Desk Appearance Ticket and eventually charged with Attempted Assault in the Third Degree (Penal Law 110/120.00), a Class B misdemeanor, and Harassment in the Second Degree (Penal Law 240.26), a violation. Prosecutors reviewed video surveillance footage, spoke to witnesses, and considered the complainant’s medical records before ultimately making a plea bargain offer to Mr. Baldwin. Under the terms of that deal, which Mr. Baldwin accepted in January 2019, Mr. Baldwin pleaded guilty to Harassment in the Second Degree and will undergo a short anger management program.

By pleading guilty, Mr. Baldwin was convicted of Harassment in the Second Degree. However, this conviction is not a “crime” under New York state law, it is a violation and/or criminal offense. As such, in response to the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime,” Mr. Baldwin could answer “no”. Also, upon completing this short anger management course (typically completed within one day), Mr. Baldwin’s records will be sealed to the public after one year. The most important benefit to this deal, of course, is that Mr. Baldwin avoids the possibility of being convicted of the misdemeanor charge and receiving a possible (though unlikely in this case) sentence of jail.

The downside to this disposition for Mr. Baldwin is that he had to admit, under oath, that he had harassed the complainant. This makes it likely that the complainant will bring a civil suit against Mr. Baldwin, and Mr. Baldwin will have a difficult time defending himself against the underlying facts. To be sure, damages will still very much be at issue in a civil lawsuit, but Mr. Baldwin’s harassment of the complainant has already been settled by way of his guilty plea under oath. The attorneys at The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo have also successfully defended several individuals accused of assault or sexual assault in civil court following the disposition of the related criminal cases.

All in all, however, it is a fairly standard disposition in a case in which the injuries appear to have been minimal. (Indeed, Mr. Baldwin was only charged with Attempted Assault instead of Assault because the complainant’s injuries did not rise to the necessary level of an assault charge.) We have also been able to secure outright dismissals for many of our clients, or negotiate “ACDs” (adjournments in contemplation of dismissal), which are superior to violation plea bargains in that the charges are totally dismissed after a six or twelve month period of time, and there is no admission of guilt whatsoever. When misdemeanor assault charges involve very serious injuries, then prosecutors sometimes insist upon the defendants being convicted of misdemeanor charges, which can result in jail time. Those cases in particular require especially skillful representation.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or given a Desk Appearance Ticket for an assault related charge, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced former prosecutors at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo.

Those who are accused of using cameras of any kind to record into dressing rooms, for example, are generally charged under Penal Law Section 250.45(1) and/or 250.45(2), which applies where a defendant surreptitiously views, broadcasts or records a person dressing or undressing, or the sexual or other intimate parts of a person when such person expects to be in private.

Those who surreptitiously view, broadcast or record someone in a bedroom, changing room, fitting room, restroom, toilet, bathroom, washroom, or shower, among other places, are charged under PL 250.45(3)(a).

Finally, PL 250.45(4) applies to those who surreptitiously view, broadcast or record “under the clothing being worn by” another person.

Those who commit any of the above offenses and who have been previously convicted within the past ten years of Unlawful Surveillance in the First or Second Degree are charged with First Degree Unlawful Surveillance, an even more serious felony.

Charges brought under any theory of Unlawful Surveillance are extremely serious, punishable as felonies with the potential for incarceration in state prison. Furthermore, some subject a defendant to either a 20-year or even lifetime term of registration as a sex offender.

So, which unlawful surveillance convictions are registrable in New York under the Sex Offender Registration Act and which are not?

The answer: convictions under subsections (2), (3)(a) and (4) do subject a defendant to SORA, whereas a conviction under subsection (1) – which applies where a defendant engages in such conduct for “his or her own amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person.” – does not.

Which Subsections of Unlawful Surveillance in the Second Degree Are Registrable?:

PL250.45(1) – no SORA registration.

PL 250.45(2) – SORA imposed, unless unduly harsh and inappropriate.

PL 250.45(3)(a) – SORA imposed, unless unduly harsh and inappropriate.

PL 250.45(4) – SORA imposed, unless unduly harsh and inappropriate.

As you can see, a conviction under subsection (1) will not expose a defendant to SORA whereas the remaining three subsections will – UNLESS “the trial court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and to the history and character of the defendant, is of the opinion that registration would be unduly harsh and inappropriate.” See Correction Law 168-a(2)(e).

So, how does a defendant go about convincing the trial court (meaning the Judge) to agree that SORA would be “unduly harsh and inappropriate?”

Well, Correction law 168-a(2)(e) requires a defense attorney file a motion setting forth the reasons why registration would indeed be unduly harsh and inappropriate in that particular case. Such a motion is generally filed after conviction (by jury or by plea) and prior to sentencing. It should be noted that Judges are generally inclined to deny these motions, but they can be won. The difference between winning and losing can be the difference between no registration and 20-year/ lifetime registration as a sex offender – so the stakes are indeed high.

Recently, firm partner Eric Arnone did prevail on such a motion in New York County Supreme Court on behalf of a young client with no previous criminal history. The client was charged under PL 250.45(4), and entered into a plea deal with prosecutors whereby he was able to avoid imprisonment. The only remaining issue was whether this young client would be required to register under SORA for, most likely, the next 20 years of his life. Luckily for the client, Mr. Arnone was able to convince both the prosecuting attorney and his supervisors – as well as the Supreme Court judge presiding over the case – that SORA would in fact be unduly harsh and inappropriate – a veritable rarity for most defendants faced with such a serious charge. (Mr. Arnone was also able to convince the Judge to grant a Certificate of Relief from Civil Disabilities, which was huge for the client).

What are the odds you will be required to register if you’ve been charged under subsections 2-4? At the end of the day every case is different, but the Court must be informed of your otherwise good character, the extent of your previous contacts with the criminal justice system, and a showing made that your risk of reoffending is minimal – in the form of a formal motion filed in Court. This requires an attorney to get to know you and prepare a convincing motion on your behalf. The other critical component of he motion must address the specific facts of the case.

In the case of Mr. Arnone’s recent client, the prosecution alleged that the defendant was in possession of over a hundred additional images on his recording device for which he could have been indicted for over a hundred additional counts. Because the defendant was shown to be an otherwise good person who accepted responsibility for his conduct and took steps to rehabilitate himself, the prosecution backed off pursuing additional charges and allowed the defendant to proceed to sentencing solely on one count. This, coupled with the defendant’s otherwise strong character, won the day.

While every case is different, an experienced attorney should do everything in his or her power to portray the client as a person first, and a defendant second. This especially is where a convincing motion needs to be worked on. While these motions are tough to win, we’ve shown they certainly can be won.

If you or a loved one faces charges for Unlawful Surveillance, contact an experienced defense attorney immediately. Our team of former prosecutors are always ready to help our next client.

Nike’s Air Jordan line of sneakers are some of the most popular and expensive athletic shoes in circulation. Nike has released a different Air Jordan model almost every year since the shoe line was first introduced in 1984. Many of these models are known by their model number, like the Air Jordan XIII, the 13^th model, and some models are known by the year of introduction, like the Air Jordan 2009. Air Jordan sneakers can cost from approximately 100$ to the thousands of dollars, depending on color and design.

More than 42 containers carrying nearly 400 000 pairs of the trendy fake sneakers traveled from factories in China to Port Newark. These sneakers were produced to resemble Air Jordan sneakers in design and color but are “generic” (the “Generic Air Jordan”). They were imported into the U.S. without the inclusion of logos that are trademarks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Once the Generic Air Jordan arrived in the U.S., they were altered within the New York area to add trademarked logos to the shoes in warehouses in Queens and Brooklyn. Once this alteration took place, the shoes were considered “counterfeit”. Finally, the Counterfeit Sneaker Ring processed with the distribution of the fake shoes within the U.S. at a significant profit.

The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, Geoffrey Berman, because many of the shoes were shipped in and out of that jurisdiction. The U.S Attorney said in a statement that he commends “our law enforcement partners for helping to bring today’s charges, which send a clear message to would-be counterfeiters: ‘Just don’t do it’ ”.

Indeed, the 5 defendants face two charges according to the complaint:

• Counterfeit trafficking conspiracy (Title 18 United States Code Section 2320(a) (1))
• Trafficking in counterfeit goods (Title 18 United States Code Section 2320 and 2.)

Under Title 18 United States Code section 2320, it is unlawful to willfully and knowingly perform, attempt, or conspire to perform any of the following acts:

• traffic in goods or services and knowingly use a counterfeit mark on or in connection with such goods or services;
• traffic in labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature, knowing that a counterfeit mark has been applied thereto, the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive;
• traffic in goods or services knowing that such good or service is a counterfeit military good or service the use, malfunction, or failure of which is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death, the disclosure of classified information, impairment of combat operations, or other significant harm to a combat operation, a member of the Armed Forces, or to national security; or
• traffic in a counterfeit drug.

In order for the five defendants to be found guilty of federal counterfeiting, the U.S. Attorney will have to prove all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

• They trafficked, attempted to traffic, or conspired to traffic in goods, services or pharmaceutical drugs;
• The goods, services or pharmaceutical drugs were counterfeit or unoriginal from those created by the trademark owner of these goods, services, or drugs;
• They knew the goods, services or pharmaceutical drugs were unoriginal or counterfeit in nature;
• And they intended for the goods, services, or pharmaceutical drugs to be fraudulently passed as original, and for them to be distributed as such.

The term “counterfeit mark” means a spurious mark:

• that is used in connection with trafficking in any goods, services, labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature;
• that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a mark registered on the principal register in the United StatesPatent and Trademark Office and in use, whether or not the defendant knew such mark was so registered;
• that is applied to or used in connection with the goods or services for which the mark is registered with the United StatesPatent and Trademark Office, or is applied to or consists of a label, patch, sticker, wrapper, badge, emblem, medallion, charm, box, container, can, case, hangtag, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature that is designed, marketed, or otherwise intended to be used on or in connection with the goods or services for which the mark is registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office; and
• the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.

Under 18 USC 2320, counterfeiting is a federal offense. These defendants face a sentence of up to 10 years in federal prison and fines of up to $2 million if they are convicted of this crime. If it is their second or subsequent offense for federal counterfeiting, they face a fine of up $5 million and up to 20 years in prison.

The author of this article is a federal criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor. If you or a loved one have been arrested for a federal offense, you should strongly consider contacting him to discuss your case and his possible representation.

Law enforcement has long sought, with mixed results, to combat prostitution offenses in New York City. Back when prostitutes used to walk the streets of notorious neighborhoods in Manhattan, police would arrest prostitutes for just “loitering for the purpose of prostitution” (basically, walking on the sidewalk dressed like a prostitute talking to potential customers about tricks). Police would also go undercover and pose as johns to get prostitutes to make illegal offers of sexual conduct for fees. Police officers continue to pose as prostitutes to entice johns to make illegal offers, though nowadays they are more likely to find a target inside of a nice establishment in the city instead of on the sidewalk. Indeed, undercover police officers dressed as attractive prostitutes often target middle aged men alone at hotel bars and proposition them to see if they will “take the bait,” so to speak. These sting victims oftentimes have legitimate entrapment defenses, but not after already having been humiliated and having had their livelihoods placed in danger as a result of the arrests.

With the advent of the internet, much of the prostitution business moved online to websites like Craigslist and Backpage. Prostitutes and escorts would post ads on these sites and johns would simply call them to make appointments. The postings were so numerous that despite some law enforcement efforts to make undercover arrests of these prostitutes – and perhaps more effectively, arrests of johns via false prostitution ads – the sheer volume of ads on these sites made it impossible to realistically stop the trade via undercover operations. Ultimately, the “escort” sections of these sites were shut down by law enforcement threats to hold the managers of these sites criminally and civilly liable.

Now, however, much of the prostitution trade has entered a grayer area: the world of Sugar Daddies and “arrangements”. Many women who do not consider themselves to be prostitutes sign up to participate on websites like sugardaddy.com and seekingarrangement.com. Though these websites post vehement disclaimers that they do not support prostitution, the “arrangements” that they facilitate look a lot like it. Basically, wealthy older men (the “sugar daddies”) look for younger women (the “sugar babies”) seeking “relationships” that involve money in exchange for their “companionship.” The prospective couple matches online and then meets in real-life, and eventually these relationships typically evolve to the point that the man gives money to the girl in exchange for companionship that includes sexual contact. Many “sugar babies” are open about their lifestyle and do not consider themselves to be engaging in illegal conduct, although most would acknowledge that they would no longer receive payments from their “sugar daddies” if they withheld sex from them.

In a way, these sugar babies and sugar daddies essentially exist within a gray area of the law. These relationships are not always explicitly sex-in-exchange-for-money relationships, though these elements are typically understood by the parties to be fundamental to the relationship. It could even be said that these relationships are not so different from the typical relationship between a wealthy man and his wife. But regardless of the legality of these relationships (and they are generally questionable under existing law), law enforcement would have difficulty curbing these relationships. After all, the typical relationship between a baby and a daddy can take several dates before sexual contact (or the discussion sexual contact or money) begins. As such, it would be difficult for law enforcement officers to invest that much time in pursuing a potential arrest in a sugar baby or sugar daddy. Moreover, the illegal “offer or agreement” to engage in sexual contact for money is not always so explicit, as the parties talk in terms of “relationships” instead of specific sex acts. This further frustrates law enforcement efforts to pursue these sorts of cases, as they would need an explicit statement to make an arrest. Of course, it is still theoretically possible that an undercover police officer could pose as a sugar daddy or sugar baby to catch someone interested in an illegal relationship. That could certainly have a huge chilling effect on the entire underground “sugar daddy” market. However, for now, our attorneys are unaware of any such arrests being made by law enforcement in New York.

If you or a loved one have need of the services or advice 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 who has been widely sought after by news and television reporters for his expert opinion on sex crimes and investigations.

If you or a loved one have been accused of rape or sexual assault, you should strongly consider contacting the experienced criminal defense attorneys at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo. Matthew Galluzzo, in particular, is a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor and nationally-recognized expert on sex crimes investigations whose opinion on pending cases has been solicited by radio, television, and print news sources around the world.

In this challenging case for the defense, Arnone’s client had been falsely accused by multiple complaining witnesses of robbing them of their cell phones while brandishing weapons. These serious allegations were made even more difficult to overcome in light of an allegation that a cell phones belonging to one of the complaining witnesses was recovered from the client at the scene. The client was further accused of acting in concert with a co-defendant to strike one of the complaining witnesses in the head with a broken bottle, thereby causing serious injury. A number of people at the scene were treated by EMS and some were hospitalized.

After conducting an extensive investigation on his client’s behalf, Arnone was able to affirmatively disprove that the robbery ever took place, and demonstrated to prosecutors that any physical force undertaken by his clients was indeed justified under New York law. Thankfully, the defense investigation succeeded in turning up invaluable surveillance camera footage which contradicted the account of the alleged victims.

After five long months during which the serious felony charges were pending, Arnone was able to convince the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office to toss out all of the following counts against his client:

Two counts of Robbery in the First Degree, each carrying a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison;

Four counts of Assault in the Second Degree, each carrying a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison;

One count of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, which carries a maximum of 1 year in jail;

One count of Criminal Possession of Stolen Property, which carries a maximum of 1 year in jail.