Anthony and Joseph Livreri entered guilty pleas in Manhattan Supreme Court to conspiracy and bribery charges. They admitted paying $4,000 to Eric Ulrich between 2021 and 2022. Ulrich previously served as Buildings Department commissioner and earlier as a senior adviser to Mayor Eric Adams.

What the Brothers Admitted in Court

According to the plea, the money was paid to lift a vacate order on Fortunato Brothers Bakery in Williamsburg. The bakery had been shut down after a fire. Prosecutors have also pointed to broader efforts by the brothers to seek Ulrich’s help with faster inspections and other business matters. Those additional claims come from the government. The plea itself is limited to the $4,000 payments and the bakery order.

The Livreris co-own Aldo’s pizzeria in Ozone Park. Under the terms of their agreement, they will not cooperate against Ulrich if called to testify and would invoke their Fifth Amendment rights. Sentencing is scheduled for December. Joseph Livreri faces a possible sentence of up to six months in jail and five years of probation. Anthony Livreri faces five years of probation.

Ulrich’s Separate Case

Ulrich continues to face multiple corruption charges and has pleaded not guilty. His case is expected to proceed to trial. The brothers’ plea resolves only a portion of the original accusations filed when they were charged alongside him in 2023. The remaining counts against Ulrich remain allegations until a court decides otherwise.

What Comes After a Guilty Plea

Once a defendant enters a guilty plea, the focus shifts to sentencing. The judge considers the specific facts admitted in court, the amount of money involved, and the individual circumstances of the person before the court. At that stage, the defense works to ensure the judge receives a complete and accurate picture before deciding on a sentence.

Public corruption cases in New York carry serious consequences. A plea does not close every question. Sentencing terms, limits on cooperation, and any related investigations can still shape the final outcome. Anyone facing charges is entitled to a careful, prepared defense. That is a legal right. It is not a statement about the underlying conduct.

Facing White-Collar or Public Corruption Charges in New York?

At Bukh Law P.A., we have dealt with and represented people charged with white-collar offenses in Brooklyn.

If by matter of circumstances you or a family member has been charged, or has received a target letter or grand jury subpoena, don’t risk it all alone. Seek legal justice by taking the first step of reaching out to us for assistance.

Use the contact form on our website and request a confidential phone conversation.

Angela Aquino entered the plea on August 20 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Vera Scanlon. She faces up to 20 years in prison if she is convicted. The case was announced by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, the New York City Department of Investigation, and the FBI.

What Prosecutors Said Happened

Under the city’s campaign finance rules, a candidate who raised $125,000 in qualifying contributions could receive up to $1 million in public matching funds. Prosecutors said Aquino knew her campaign had not legitimately reached that threshold and took steps to make it look as if it had.

In early 2025 more than $130,000 from the Philippines landed in her personal bank account, including at least $34,000 described as a loan. Cash was repeatedly withdrawn and deposited into the campaign account. Contribution cards were submitted that made the money appear to come from New York City residents.

Some campaign funds were also used for personal expenses, including rent, while being reported as legitimate campaign costs.

How These Cases Usually Move

Federal campaign finance prosecutions often rest on bank records, contribution filings, and statements made to investigators. Once a defendant admits the core conduct in a plea, the remaining fight usually centers on the guidelines calculation, the amount of loss, and any acceptance of responsibility credit.

Judges look closely at whether the scheme actually succeeded in drawing public money and how sophisticated the paper trail was.

From the defense side, the early decisions about what to concede, what to contest, and how to present the defendant’s role tend to shape the sentencing range more than later arguments. Cases that begin with overseas wire transfers and falsified donor records rarely turn on a single disputed fact. They turn on the overall pattern the government can prove.

When Federal Charges Hit Close to Home

A guilty plea in a case like this does not end the legal work. Sentences still have to be prepared, the guidelines still have to be calculated, and the defendant still has the right to put the strongest available mitigation in front of the judge. That work is exacting and personal. It is not about defending the underlying conduct.

It is about making sure the court sees the full picture of the person standing in front of it before a sentence is imposed.

Bukh Law, P.A. handles federal criminal matters in Brooklyn and the Eastern District. If you or someone in your family is facing sentencing or still fighting charges in federal court, use the contact form on our website and request a free phone conversation.

Bring the paperwork you have. We will sit with the actual record and talk through what can still be done.

Dan Sohail, 36, appeared in Brooklyn federal court before Judge Eric N. Vitaliano. Prosecutors had asked for a longer sentence, but the judge declined that recommendation.

Because Sohail has already spent about six months in detention, he is expected to be released in roughly a week. He was also ordered to pay $20,000 in restitution.

What Happened in January

On Jan. 28, Sohail drove his car into a side entrance of the building at 770 Eastern Parkway five times, knocking the door off its hinges and damaging the front of his vehicle. No one was injured.

Before he drove toward the entrance, he waved people away from the area.

The complex includes a synagogue and offices and was busy at the time. The crash took place on the 75th anniversary of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson becoming the leader of the Lubavitch movement.

The Court’s Decision

Federal prosecutors charged Sohail with intentionally damaging religious property. He pleaded guilty in mid-May. At sentencing, the government argued for a stiffer term as a deterrent, noting the sharp rise in hate crimes against Jewish people and institutions in New York City this year.

Judge Vitaliano said he was “somewhat saddened” that the Justice Department wanted him to be influenced by the early public impression that the incident was a hate crime or act of terrorism. He pointed to a psychiatric report showing that mental health challenges played a significant role in Sohail’s actions.

Defense attorney Mia Eisner-Grynberg told the court that Sohail was dealing with depression and post-traumatic stress after a difficult childhood.

She said he had been trying to connect with Judaism, had attended the Chabad, and found the students there welcoming. After a trip to Israel he became increasingly anxious and erratic. She described the crash as “an irrational cry for help.”

When Mental Health and Criminal Charges Overlap

Cases that begin with a dramatic public incident often look one way in the early media coverage and another once psychiatric evaluations and full facts reach the courtroom. Judges regularly weigh mental health history, the absence of injury, and the defendant’s actions before and after the event when deciding a sentence. The gap between public reaction and the legal outcome can be wide.

Anyone facing federal charges that involve religious property, questions of intent, or significant mental health issues benefits from counsel who can present the full picture to the court.

Facing Federal Charges in Brooklyn?

Sentencing decisions in cases like this one show how much weight courts give to mental health evidence, the actual harm caused, and the defendant’s personal history. If you or a family member is dealing with federal or state charges in Brooklyn or elsewhere in New York, the right legal approach can shape the outcome more than most people realize.

Use the contact form here on our website to request a free phone conversation. We will review the details of your case and explain the practical options available.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein set the schedule Wednesday after both sides agreed on the timeline. Defense lawyers will start filing challenges to the indictment in early September, and oral arguments are planned for November 17.

Where the Case Stands

Maduro, 63, and Cilia Flores, 69, have been held in a Brooklyn jail since U.S. forces took them from their home in Caracas earlier this year and brought them to New York. Both have pleaded not guilty. If a jury convicts them of helping move large amounts of cocaine into the United States, they could face life in prison.

Neither spoke during the short hearing. Maduro looked thinner than in past public appearances, wore a jail uniform, greeted court staff, spoke quietly with his lawyers, and took notes while listening through a Spanish interpreter.

What the Defense Plans to Argue

Maduro’s attorney has said the first big challenge will focus on sovereign immunity. Other questions about how he was captured and whether U.S. courts have the authority to try him are also expected before any trial starts. The couple has not asked to be released on bail.

Prosecutors claim Maduro worked with Venezuelan officials and traffickers to move cocaine into the United States. Maduro has called himself a political prisoner and denied the charges.

How Cases Like This Usually Play Out in Court

American judges have long said that if a defendant is physically here, the court has the power to hear the case, even if the person was grabbed overseas or brought in by force. This idea goes back to two old Supreme Court cases from 1886 and 1952 (known together as the Ker-Frisbie doctrine).

The Court stuck with it in 1992 when it allowed the trial of a Mexican doctor who had been kidnapped and flown to the United States.

The same rule applied after U.S. forces grabbed Manuel Noriega in Panama in 1989. In short, how the person got here almost never stops the trial from going forward. There’s a narrow exception for truly extreme mistreatment, but courts almost never use it.

Heads of state don’t automatically get a free pass.

Defense lawyers for foreign leaders often argue that their client should be immune because they were (or claimed to be) a head of state. U.S. courts have usually rejected that argument when the charges involve serious personal crimes like drug trafficking. Judges treat those acts as private conduct, not official government business.

Noriega tried the immunity claim and lost. Legal experts watching Maduro’s case say the same logic will probably apply here, especially since the U.S. government has refused for years to recognize him as Venezuela’s legitimate president.

Seeking Experienced Legal Defense in Brooklyn

A person involved with complicated jurisdictional questions, international elements, or serious conspiracy allegations needs clear guidance from the start. Decisions made early about motions, evidence, and strategy can shape the entire case.

Here at Bukh Law P.A., our attorneys have handled serious federal and state criminal matters across New York City. We look carefully at the government’s evidence, protect clients’ rights, and build strategies around the actual facts of each case.

Schedule a free phone call with our team now by leaving your contact information on our website. We’ll go over the details of your situation and help you see what realistic options are available.