Articles Tagged with attorney

Published on:

By

On October 24, The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC successfully secured the full dismissal of misdemeanor Assault in the Third Degree, Forcible Touching, and Sexual Abuse in the Third Degree charges for a client in Manhattan criminal court. Our client, a holder of an H1B visa, allegedly groped a woman’s buttocks and punched a man in the face in a nightclub in Manhattan. The investigative team at the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC performed its own investigation of the incident and presented its findings, which told a very different story. About three months after our client’s arrest, the Manhattan D.A.’s Office moved to dismiss all charges and our client’s arrest record was sealed. He can now move forward with his life – including his anticipated application for American citizenship – without having to worry about this unfortunate incident impeding his future.

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.

Published on:

By

In 2019, to combat the phenomenon known as “revenge porn,” the state of New York added Penal Law Section 245.15 to its list of criminal charges. Specifically, it is now a class A misdemeanor for a person to unlawfully disseminate or publish an intimate image without the consent of the person depicted in the image. This generally prevents an ex-boyfriend from humiliating an ex-girlfriend by using intimate photos taken during the relationship and sharing them with friends or posting them to the internet. So, even though the images might have been freely given during the relationship, a person is not necessarily free to distribute or dispose of those images however they want. Of course, a person could be subject to a civil lawsuit for engaging in “revenge porn” behavior as well. Depending on the circumstances, other charges might also be brought against an alleged “revenge porn” offender, including extortion, aggravated harassment, stalking, or unlawful surveillance.

The criminal charge states:

1. A person is guilty of unlawful dissemination or publication of an intimate image when: (a) with intent to cause harm to the emotional, financial or physical welfare of another person, he or she intentionally disseminates or publishes a still or video image of such other person, who is identifiable from the still or video image itself or from information displayed in connection with the still or video image, without such other person’s consent, which depicts: (i) an unclothed or exposed intimate part of such other person; or (ii) such other person engaging in sexual conduct as defined in subdivision ten of section 130.00 of this chapter with another person; and (b) such still or video image was taken under circumstances when the person depicted had a reasonable expectation that the image would remain private and the actor knew or reasonably should have known the person depicted intended for the still or video image to remain private, regardless of whether the actor was present when the still or video image was taken.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Today, the prosecutors in the case against Lori Loughlin filed with with the court a signed copy of her plea agreement, thereby indicating that Mr. Loughlin intends to plead guilty in connection with the “Varsity Blues” case involving college admissions fraud. (Her actual plea hearing has been scheduled for tomorrow, May 22, via videoconference). The agreement that she has entered into is somewhat rare in federal court, and has certain advantages for her.

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

A federal law enforcement investigation codenamed “Operation Varsity Blues” recently resulted in the arrests of dozens of people for allegedly conspiring to fraudulently obtain admissions into selective universities. Fifty people have been accused of working together to bribe university athletic coaches, submit fraudulent college applications, cheat on college entrance exams, and otherwise bribe college officials into admitting otherwise undeserving applicants. The accused individuals include two former Hollywood actresses – Felicity Huffman and Lori McLaughlin (who famously portrayed “Aunt Becky” on the TV show “Full House”) – as well as wealthy hedge fund managers and the chair of international law firm Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, among others. Wealthy parents paid as much as $6.5 million in bribes and fraudulent payments to get their children into the universities of their choice, including Stanford, Yale, USC and others. The case has seized the national attention as an example of the privileged elite abusing their power and influence, and the Department of Justice states that this is the largest college admissions scandal that it has ever prosecuted.

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

As criminal defense attorneys, we defend people from all walks of life who have been accused of committing a wide variety of crimes. Here, we discuss two of the more embarrassing charges some of our clients face: Public Lewdness (P.L. § 245.00) and Exposure of a Person (P.L. § 245.01).

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In this continuation from Part I of our discussion on assault, we discuss the sufficiency of allegations of physical injury.

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;
Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Whether it stems from a bar fight, an incident involving road rage, a domestic spat, or even an altercation at the work-place, cases involving charges of Assault in the Third Degree are among the most common – and serious – we see in the City of New York. A Class “A” misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail, “Assault 3” cases are among the most serious misdemeanors because they involve allegations of physical injury inflicted upon another, and prosecutors thus subject them to increased scrutiny. In this article, we discuss some of the legal components of Assault in the Third Degree, and a powerful tool our team of former prosecutors often uses to attack assault charges prior to trial: challenges to legal sufficiency.

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

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Here’s one question we are consistently asked: “Do I need to hire a lawyer for my desk appearance?” The short answer is “yes” and “absolutely.” In this blog, we discuss why this is.

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.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

A majority of our clients are booked, processed and “put through the system,” meaning they are brought to central booking shortly after arrest and then brought out before a Judge for an arraignment on the charges. Usually, this arraignment occurs within roughly 24 hours of the arrest. Other clients are issued Desk Appearance Tickets (“D.A.T.’s”) or summonses which command them to return to Court on a future date.

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:

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Under New York state law, there are three degrees of rape, with Rape in the First Degree (Penal Law Section 130.35) being the most serious (a Class B violent felony). Rape in the Third Degree (Penal Law 130.25), however, may be the most common criminal charge, and it can be brought in three different ways.

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.

Continue reading →
Contact Information
11 Broadway #715
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 344-5180
We serve the following localities: New York City including Manhattan, The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2023, The Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design