Criminal Defense Attorney in Bronx New York Non Prosecution

The client operated a delivery focused restaurant through a third party food delivery application and closely monitored customer reviews due to their direct impact on business revenue and reputation.

After a customer left a highly negative review claiming cold food and insufficient portions, the restaurant owner determined that the statements were factually inaccurate based on preparation records and delivery timing data.

The review also contained language discouraging others from ordering and questioning the legitimacy of the business, which the owner believed crossed from opinion into misinformation.

In response, the owner replied publicly that if false statements remained posted, the platform’s reporting tools and potential legal remedies could be pursued, requesting voluntary deletion or correction of the review.

The client had no prior criminal history and had never been involved in law enforcement proceedings, making the investigation particularly alarming.

Under New York law, the alleged offense requires proof that the accused intentionally communicated a threat of unlawful harm and that the communication would cause a reasonable person to fear such harm under New York law.

The client feared that casual or imprecise language used in a business context could be misinterpreted as coercive or threatening without proper legal framing.

At this stage, retaining a criminal defense attorney in Bronx New York became critical to ensure that the client’s narrative was presented accurately before formal charges were considered.

Defense counsel conducted a detailed review of the exact wording used in the online response, the public nature of the platform, and the absence of any reference to physical harm or unlawful conduct.

It was emphasized that mentioning potential reporting or legal action, without more, is generally protected and does not satisfy the statutory elements of a criminal threat.

The attorney also highlighted that the customer continued normal online activity after the exchange, undermining any claim of genuine fear or intimidation.

By organizing these facts chronologically, the defense reframed the interaction as a consumer business dispute rather than criminal conduct.

A key component of the defense was demonstrating the client’s intent was reputational protection, not intimidation.

Under New York standards, subjective annoyance or discomfort does not equate to legally cognizable fear required for criminal liability.

The attorney presented evidence showing the response was measured, conditional, and focused on platform rules rather than personal retaliation.

This contextual approach aligned the facts with established New York interpretations of criminal intent and protected speech.

Investigators concluded that the restaurant owner’s statements did not constitute a criminal threat under New York law and lacked the elements necessary to establish criminal liability.

The communication was deemed part of a business dispute concerning online reviews, not a threat of unlawful harm.

As a result, the case ended at the investigative stage with no charges filed, no arrest record, and no further legal exposure for the client.