Cyber Crimes Lawyer in New York

State and Federal Cybercrime Defense Built Around the Evidence

Cybercrime allegations can put far more than a criminal case at risk. Careers, professional reputations, businesses, and freedom can all be affected when investigators allege unauthorized access, computer tampering, fraud, data theft, or other technology-related misconduct.

At Barket Epstein Kearon Aldea & LoTurco, LLP, our criminal defense team includes former prosecutors, former public defenders, and a former Nassau County Court Judge. We bring more than 200 years of combined legal experience to a team-based approach built on investigation, preparation, and close analysis of the government’s evidence.

Cybercrime matters may arise under New York law, federal law, or both, depending on the alleged conduct. Our attorneys represent clients in state and federal criminal matters from offices in Garden City, Manhattan, and Huntington.

New York Computer Crimes Under Penal Law Article 156

New York Penal Law Article 156 establishes several offenses involving computers, computer services, networks, data, and programs.

Unauthorized Use of a Computer under Section 156.05 occurs when a person knowingly uses or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization. It is a Class A misdemeanor, which can carry up to 364 days of incarceration under current New York law.

Article 156 also includes more serious offenses involving computer trespass, computer tampering, and unlawful duplication or possession of computer-related material.

At the felony level, Computer Tampering in the First Degree under Section 156.27 can apply when the statutory elements are met and the alleged alteration or destruction of computer data or a program causes aggregate damages exceeding $50,000. It is a Class C felony, a classification that can carry a maximum term of up to 15 years.

The exact charge matters. A case involving access to a workplace network can present very different legal questions from a case involving alleged destruction of data or a broader fraud scheme.

Federal Cybercrime Charges and the CFAA

Federal computer-crime allegations frequently involve the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and other federal criminal statutes.

The CFAA, 18 U.S.C. §1030, contains several different offenses involving unauthorized computer access, obtaining information, fraud, damage to protected computers, trafficking in access credentials, threats, and related conduct.

Whether access was actually unauthorized can be one of the most important issues in a CFAA case. Federal law distinguishes between accessing a system without authorization and exceeding access that was legitimately granted. The legal analysis depends on what areas of the computer or system a person was entitled to access, not simply whether an employer or another party disapproved of how information was later used.

Other technology-related allegations may involve separate crimes such as identity theft, wire fraud, extortion, or related financial offenses. When a case is primarily based on alleged deception or financial misconduct, our fraud defense practice may also be relevant.

Federal penalties vary significantly depending on the particular statute, subsection, alleged loss or damage, prior convictions, and other facts. Potential consequences can include incarceration, fines, restitution, or forfeiture in qualifying cases.

How Digital Evidence Is Collected in Cybercrime Investigations

Cybercrime investigations can begin well before an arrest or indictment.

Depending on the case, investigators may seek electronic evidence through search warrants, subpoenas, court orders, preservation requests, or other authorized legal processes. The information sought may include device data, account records, communications, access logs, subscriber information, or records maintained by technology providers.

Federal investigations can also involve agencies such as the FBI or U.S. Secret Service, depending on the conduct under investigation.

For the defense, the volume of information is only the beginning. We examine how evidence was obtained, what it actually establishes, whether the government has accurately attributed activity to a particular person, and whether legal limits on the search or collection were followed.

When investigators make contact before charges are filed, understanding the purpose of that contact and the status of the investigation can be critical. A person facing that situation should consider obtaining legal advice before making substantive statements about the allegations.

Authorization Can Be Central to a Computer Crime Case

Not every disputed use of a computer or network is criminal.

New York law expressly recognizes defenses to certain Article 156 offenses when a defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that the person was authorized to use the computer or had the right to alter, destroy, copy, or duplicate the material involved.

That issue can be especially important in cases involving:

• Employees or former employees accused of exceeding workplace access
• Shared devices or accounts
• Access credentials provided by another person
• Disputes over the scope of permission
• Business relationships involving jointly used systems or data

Federal CFAA cases can raise related authorization questions, although federal and New York statutes are not interchangeable.

Our focus is on the actual permissions, technical restrictions, communications, account structures, and evidence that define what access existed at the relevant time.

Issues We Examine in a Cybercrime Defense

Cybercrime defense requires careful attention to both legal elements and electronic evidence. There is no useful one-size-fits-all defense.

Depending on the allegations, our review may examine:

Authorization and Access

We analyze what access was actually granted, whether restrictions were technical or contractual, and what the charged statute requires the prosecution to prove.

Intent and Knowledge

Computer-related statutes contain different mental-state requirements. The government must prove the elements of the specific offense charged, not simply that questionable or unauthorized activity occurred.

Identity and Attribution

A device, IP address, account, or login credential does not answer every question about who performed a particular act. Attribution evidence must be evaluated in the context of the full record.

Search and Seizure

Warrants and other legal processes used to obtain devices, accounts, or electronic information can raise Fourth Amendment and statutory issues. We examine the authority relied upon and the scope of the evidence collected.

Integrity of Digital Evidence

Logs, device data, timestamps, metadata, chain of custody, and forensic examination methods can all become important when the prosecution relies heavily on electronic evidence.

New York law also provides specific authorization-related defenses for several Article 156 offenses. The defense strategy must be built around the particular statute and the evidence, rather than a generic list of cybercrime defenses.