Fondling and unwanted touching allegations.
Fondling allegations account for a large share of campus matters and are frequently treated as a lesser charge by respondents. They are a sex offence under the imported federal definition, and the elements deserve the same scrutiny as anything graver.
The imported definition.
The 2020 regulations define sexual assault by reference to federal categories, and fondling is among them: the touching of the private body parts of another person for the purpose of sexual gratification, without consent, or where the person is incapable of giving consent. Every clause there is an element - intentional touching, of defined parts, for a stated purpose, without consent - and each has to be established rather than inferred from the fact of contact.
Crowded settings.
A substantial proportion of these allegations arise in bars, at concerts, in transit, and at parties, where incidental contact is constant and unavoidable. That is not a rhetorical defense; it is a factual one, and it is proved with evidence about the space: density, layout, movement patterns, lighting, and video. Footage in these venues is overwritten quickly, which makes the preservation demand the first task rather than a later one.
Identification.
Where a complainant turned to find several people behind them, identification is genuinely in issue and it is testable - video, payment and entry records placing a respondent elsewhere in a venue, and companion accounts. Respondents frequently skip this because they assume the allegation is about intent rather than identity, and the record that would have resolved it is gone by the time anyone looks.
The criminal parallel, assessed first.
Fondling under campus policy maps onto state forcible touching and sexual abuse statutes. Those are sex offences with disclosure consequences, licensure consequences, and in defined circumstances registration exposure. Nothing should be said in the campus process - and in particular nothing about intent, which is the contested element - before that exposure has been assessed by counsel who handles both.
Why you should call us.
If you are scrolling through search results trying to find someone to defend you, your search is over. You have found Spodek Law Group P.C. - and we are not your average defense firm. We know a thing or two about defending the accused in campus cases - and in the criminal courts that run alongside them. Over 50 years of combined experience, some of the toughest cases in the country, and we have come out on top. We have seen it all, and we empathise with you. We understand how frightening this is, and we have a legal team who can fight and win.
Unlike other attorneys who care about their reputation with the administrators and the prosecutors, our only goal is getting you the best outcome. We owe loyalty to only you. Our lawyers listen to you, your fears, and your goals. We care about your story, and that is where the work begins - by understanding and listening to you.
On billing, we are transparent about our fees, and there are no surprises. Choosing a lawyer is a big deal and cost is a real issue, so we are committed to being your champion irrespective of your ability to pay. Our firm has a simple belief: lawyers should only take on clients whom they can truly help. Many firms are mills that take every case through the door. We do not.
Working with us starts with a risk-free consultation, in person or over the phone. You can ask us anything, for as long as it takes, and we encourage you to ask the tough questions. We are available 24/7, we practise coast to coast, and every client has direct access to a partner. Call 212 300 5196 - an attorney answers.
