Danielle Muscatello

Attorney

Profile
Credentials
Practice Areas

Bio

With over 15 years of experience, Danielle Muscatello has devoted her entire career to practicing criminal law. After briefly working as an Assistant District Attorney in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, she took a position in January 2010 at a boutique criminal defense firm based in Queens County, and since that time she has dedicated herself to criminal defense work, focusing on pre-trial motion practice, mitigation, and post-conviction and appellate litigation.

Ms. Muscatello is committed to giving each case the particularized and personal attention it deserves, and to protecting the constitutional rights of each client at every stage of a criminal prosecution.

Ms. Muscatello has experience litigating SORA registration cases, bail conditions, search and eavesdropping warrants, licensing cases against the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, and a wide range of criminal cases, including assault, forgery, rape, drugs, and murder. She has also successfully tried cases through verdict, and she has argued cases in the First and Second Departments and in the New York State Court of Appeals.

Recently, too, Ms. Muscatello has spearheaded efforts to address the abuse suffered by men incarcerated in New York State, who have been brutalized by correction officers and special tactical response teams. See https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/nyregion/sing-sing-beatings-investigation.html, and https://westchester.news12.com/lawsuit-alleges-vicious-gang-assaults-against-prisoners-were-committed-by-sing-sing-correctional-officers

Significant Wins:

The reversal of a murder conviction, where the trial court permitted the introduction of inadmissible hearsay (Appellate Division, Second Department);
The reversal of a murder conviction, where the prosecution failed to meet its burden of establishing that the procedure by which the client was identified was not impermissibly suggestive (Appellate Division, Second Department);
The reversal of a conviction for court of sexual conduct against a child, where the trial court erroneously concluded that defense counsel opened the door to evidence of multiple uncharged bad acts (Appellate Division, Second Department);
The reversal of a weapon possession conviction and dismissal of the indictment, where police lacked the necessary reasonable suspicion to lawfully pursue the client when he fled from them (Appellate Division, Second Department);
The reversal of a weapon possession conviction and dismissal of the indictment where there was no reasonable basis to believe the client had committed a traffic infraction, and the stop of his vehicle, therefore, was unlawful (Appellate Division, Second Department);
The reversal of a bribery and false reporting conviction where the police violated the client’s right to counsel and to right to remain silent (Appellate Division, Second Department);
The reversal of a harassment conviction and dismissal of the accusatory instrument, where the trial court erroneously admitted the complainant’s 911 call (Appellate Term, Second Department);
The dismissal of the accusatory instrument charging the non-citizen client with sexual abuse and forcible touching where the complaint contained non-waivable jurisdictional defects (Kings County Criminal Court);
The dismissal of the accusatory instrument charging the non-citizen client with forcible touching where the prosecution failed to file a valid Certificate of Compliance within 90 days (Suffolk County District Court);
The dismissal of an indictment charging the client in connection with a multi-defendant narcotics conspiracy where the prosecution failed to file a valid Certificate of Compliance within six months (Queens County Supreme Court);
The suppression of evidence seized pursuant to an eavesdropping warrant and dismissal of the indictment, where the warrant application failed to establish probable cause (Queens County Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department);
The reduction of the client’s sentence, after re-trial, as harsh and excessive, resulting in a sentence of probation rather than incarceration (Appellate Division, First Department);
The remittal of the client’s speedy trial claim to the New York County Supreme Court, where the trial court failed to make the prior inquiry with regard to the prosecution’s statements of readiness (New York State Court of Appeals);
The removal of the client from the sex offender registry (Queens County Supreme Court)