On October 15, the District Attorney appeared with me and my lawyer, James Roth, in Supreme Court, a date set for the grand larceny charges against me to go to a grand jury.
A supervisory attorney made an appearance and made a motion to the Judge that the charges be reduced to Petit Larceny (which made sense since the cameras I removed from 95 Christopher Street were only worth $450.) She then advised the judge that the DA would agree to an ACD (Adjournment In Contemplation of Dismissal), which would mean the charges would be dropped if I didn’t get arrested for six months, conditioned on my paying $2600 to replace and reinstall the cameras.
I said “NO” and the judge scheduled the exchange of briefs addressed to a Motion to Dismiss In the Interests of Justice and a second Motion to Dismiss addressed to the lack of intent to “permanently deprive” the camera’s owners of their cameras with the purpose of enriching myself (that is the definition of larceny in the Criminal Code.) We are back in court on December 9 to get a ruling.
—Arthur Z. Schwartz