Criminal Defense Lawyer in Rochester, NY

People v. I.M. (Roch. City Ct., 8/21)

MR. CORLETTA OBTAINS DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL CHARGE IN LANDLORD/TENANT DISPUTE.

The moratorium on evictions created by COVID-19 has created tensions within families and in Landlord/Tenant relationships, due to tenants virtually squatting in properties without paying rent and protected by the Eviction Moratorium, while landlords continue to incur costs for their properties without income. This has understandably become a considerable source of tension between hard-pressed landlords who still must pay mortgages and operating expenses on the properties they rent to financially strapped tenants, many of whom have legitimate hardships due to loss of employment.

However, some tenants who receive Public Assistance, Section 8, or other government subsidies such as Unemployment Insurance Benefits, stimulus, etc., game the system. This occurred in one of Mr. Corletta’s cases in People v. I.M. (Roch. City Ct., 8/21).

In that case, Mr. Corletta’;s client was the landlord. Their tenant was a Section 8 recipient who was cut off because they were not using the funds for rent and had an eviction proceeding brought against them. As a result, they were then living in the property for free after misusing the Section 8 funds.

The tenant then attempted to exclude Mr. Corletta’s client from the property by claiming Mr. Corletta’s client was “harassing” her, and changing the locks. As a result, not only was Mr. Corletta’s client not collecting any rent, but was unable to care for the property as it fell into disrepair.

Mr. Corletta’s client then entered the property when the tenant was not there. The tenant contacted police, claiming Mr. Corletta’s client attempted to burglarize the property and set it on fire, resulting in an extensive investigation, and a “Reckless Endangerment of Property” charge, when no evidence of arson could be found. The property allegedly “endangered” was the client’s own property.

This was a difficult situation because both the authorities and the client intertwined the issues in the criminal case with landlord/tenant issues. The client expected Mr. Corletta to do something about the tenant. Mr. Corletta separated the issues, kept his eye on the ball, examined the evidence like in any other criminal case, and got the criminal charge completely dismissed via written Motion to Dismiss, which the District Attorney failed to respond to either in writing or orally, because there was no legal basis for the charge.

Mr. Corletta explained to the Court that the criminal charge was nothing more than a pretext to keep his client away from the property. Although the Judge was completely sympathetic and dismissed the charge, he echoed Mr. Corletta’s analysis, and referred the client back to Landlord/Tenant Court to address the issues involving the tenant. However, the client at least did not have the onus of a criminal charge hanging over their head.

United States v. M.J. (US Dist. Ct., 78/21).
MR. CORLETTA, AFTER NEARLY TWO YEAR BATTLE, OBTAINS FAVORABLE DISPOSITION FOR DEFENDANT IN SERIOUS FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASBESTOS CASE

Cases in Federal Court are far different from those in State Court. There is a completely different set of rules. Federal cases are governed by Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In Federal criminal cases, Misdemeanor reductions are rare. Further, non-jail sentences are rare.
Notwithstanding, Mr. Corletta obtained exactly that in United States v. M.J. (US Dist. Ct., 8/21).

In that case, Mr. Corletta’s client, a 30+ year employee of the State of New York, was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury for Unlawful Release of Asbestos into the Environment, a federal felony. Mr. Corletta’s client was a low level Maintenance Supervisor on a New York State property containing several older buildings in need of asbestos remediation.

None of the client’s superiors were indicted. The contractor who contracted with New York State to perform a “cleanout” of this old building was not indicted. Mr. Corletta’s client, a Maintenance Supervisor who performed maintenance with a small crew on numerous buildings on that property, was indicted, because the client was the only person who forthrightly told environmental investigators what happened.

Mr. Corletta’s client did not participate in the planning, administration, supervision, or bidding of the job, had virtually no purchasing authority. An outside contractor did it. The client “opened” the door.

Mr. Corletta’s client had minimal involvement in this job. Nonetheless, as the last person in the “food chain”, the client was indicted, as the client’s superior disclaimed all knowledge. The contractor who submitted a “lowball” bid, promptly obtained an attorney, and also disclaimed knowledge.

Mr. Corletta reviewed over 1500 pages of Discovery materials and Grand Jury transcripts in representing this client. After assessing the client’s potential exposure under the Federal Clean Air Act, Mr. Corletta was able to obtain the government’s assent to a Misdemeanor Plea. This was done after assessing all facts and circumstances, including the possibility of conviction and incarceration during a pandemic for an older Defendant with health problems.

The next hurdle was to convince the District Judge to depart from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and impose no jail. Mr. Corletta filed the appropriate Sentencing Memorandum and Downward Departure Motion under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and made multiple arguments on Defendant’s behalf, primarily centered on his lack of authority, the responsibility of higher-ups, and that he was acting on their orders. Not only was Mr. Corletta able to convince the District Judge to impose no jail, but the client was sentenced to only one year probation; a virtually unheard of sentence on the Federal level.

Mr. Corletta also saved his client tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees if the matter was tried.
Needless to say, the client was extremely grateful to Mr. Corletta and expressed that sentiment in open Court at the time of sentencing.

Mr. Corletta, sensing injustice, told the District Judge in his Sentencing comments that it had been an honor to represent this client, who was clearly one of the most forthright, standup individuals Mr. Corletta has ever represented, who had been betrayed by superiors, people the client trusted.