.

Darien Man Cited in Stamford Prostitution Bust

A Greenwich man also was issued an infraction summons when police raided a Summer Street massage parlor on Thursday.

A 40-year-old Darien man was cited in Stamford Thursday during a bust of an alleged prostitution ring that operated out of a massage parlor, according to .

The Devon Road resident was ticketed with patronizing a prostitute during the raid, which was reportedly carried out after police received numerous citizen complaints about the business.

According Lt. Tim Shaw, the department's Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit executed a search and seizure warrant at La Rue Estetique Spa (2700 Summer St.) Thursday afternoon.

Upon entering the building, officers observed a male and female engaging in sexual activity in a room on the second floor. In another room, officers observed a female wearing only a bra standing next to a male who was undressed and laying on a massage table. A third female was found sitting at a desk with a computer. 

During the search, officers seized the computer, a credit card data processor, an interior surveillance system with three cameras, numerous condoms concealed in cans with false bottoms, body oils and lotions, and cash. A 2003 Lexus model GX 470 was also seized from the location.

Officers called the ring's "madam" — Natalia Cataraso, 41, of Brooklyn, NY — to the location where she was arrested and charged with promoting prostitution in the second degree and operating a massage parlor without a license. Rano Rakhimova, 21, Maryna Rogozhyna, 29, and Alla Gindin, 39, of Brooklyn, NY, were all arrested and charged with prostitution and operating a massage parlor without a license.

Along with the Darien man, a 68-year-old Greenwich resident was also cited for patronizing a prostitute. Both were released on a promise to appear and are scheduled to appear in court April 7.

This story was by Stamford Patch. The language describing violations has been updated to reflect more accurately what charges police brought.

BIff March 31, 2011 at 03:25 PM
It appeared in the Stamford Advocate, paper and web versions. It is in the public domain, and once it appears on a web page, like the Advocate, it is out there for all to see. It is public information, and it is a crime. It is reportable.
sebastian dangerfield March 31, 2011 at 04:00 PM
Blff I think everyone is aware of that. My point is that Patch isnt the Advocate. It tries to be a community minded website. We see the headline is about Phil's Grill , with happy pictures. I think Patch needs to decide if it's going to be a place that reports this type of stuff, or is a site that has a certain level of decorum. I don't think anyone has said Patch has no right. They have said it's dissapointing.
maeager March 31, 2011 at 04:22 PM
If it's okay to report in a large town, it's okay to report in a small one, pure and simple. Covering the good with the bad is what a respectable newspaper does. Nothing stops the Advocate from covering restaurants and happy stories, and nothing should stop Patch from covering grim ones.
BIff March 31, 2011 at 04:30 PM
The problem is the Patch is National. It is owned by AOL and there is Stamford Patch where everything that happens in Stamford is reported. The various town are all linked. Don't be fooled. The Patch is a national endeavor that can cover everything. There are over 1,000 "Patches" towns/cities now and it grows each and every day.
max April 01, 2011 at 12:54 AM
I do not think newspapers print follow ups. I wanted a follow up on Margaret Steffannoni when she was charged with leaving her 5 kids in the care of the old that was around 8 yr old at the time. She was busted when the fire department had to respond to the home. At the time the Darien Times told me that they do not follow up on stories like that and I was free to call Stamford court if I wished. I know this is Patch and not Darien Times, but I would expect a similar position.
sebastian dangerfield April 01, 2011 at 04:26 AM
blff and maegher-- why are you guys, who are so proud of your viewpoints, using fake names? How on one hand can you advocate total exposure, and then hide behind anonymity? You 2 are phonies. You want other people held accountable for their actions, yet you wont even take responsibility for even an opinion? Accountability and responsibility are fine in your books, as long as it's not you. You want other people's names to be in print, but not your own? You act as though you never make mistakes--but are afraid to reveal who you are? Gross.
Saul Green April 01, 2011 at 12:37 PM
Are you aware that it is a federal crime to harass someone on the internet and not reveal your true identity? “In 2006, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.” Under federal law when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. It states: “Whoever…utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet… without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person…who receives the communications…shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”
James M. Patrick April 01, 2011 at 02:29 PM
This is taken directly form Patch's Terms of Use: Registration We want everyone to enjoy Patch, so you may use the Service without registration (ie, signing up with a email address and password). However, in order to access some aspects of the Service, you will need to register for an account. Your account is for your sole, personal use. You may not allow others to use your account and you may not assign or otherwise transfer your account to any other person or entity. (If another person or entity wants an account, they can easily sign up themselves.) Patch believes in transparency, and we ask that all your registration information be truthful. You may not use any aliases or other means to mask your true identity. You are responsible for the security of your password and will be solely liable for any use or unauthorized use under such password. Therefore, if you share a computer with others, don’t allow your Internet browser to automatically save your password. Also, don’t write your password on a Post-It note and leave it on your desk for all to see.
Terry Brooks April 01, 2011 at 05:16 PM
1.) If Miguel was so in need of a massage, he should have gone on the Patch directory - Elizabeth Adren and Lamphir come to mind and suppoted local business. 2.) They probably should legalize prostitution for the tax revenue it would generate and controling the spread of AIDs and STD's. Worked somewhat in the porn industry. There would be less people "forced" into the business. 3.) This would have been an amazing story if a priest was up there at the time of the arrest. 4.) To Miguel friends and foes: poor guy was in the wrong place at the wong time.
sebastian dangerfield April 01, 2011 at 11:59 PM
So you believe in the first amendment, maegher, but you dont believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Your arbitrary adoption of american principles, is telling. I simply have no idea why you need to know or want to know what goes on in this mans private life. But I guess those without a life , take pleasure in seeing other peoples names dragged though the mud. And while they endorse dragging names through the mud, they dont have the integrity to even allow the man to know his attackers. Its cowardly and its wrong. The first amendment by the way, was adopted to allow criticism of the government. Not opine about the private lives of your neighbors.
max April 03, 2011 at 01:20 AM
saul, The rule you cite is about sending messages (e-mail). This is posting on a public forum and it is not being sent (transmitted) to a person, so does not apply.
max April 03, 2011 at 01:34 AM
Is there a point to your only comment, or are you just auditioning for the job of internet police?
max April 03, 2011 at 01:43 AM
@ Terry "...Inside the first room, officers saw a woman on top of a man in the middle of a sexual act. In the second room, officers saw a woman clad only in a bra next to nude man laying on a massage table." Miguel was one of these two men. That is a little more than wrong place and wrong time, it is wrong choices and wrong action.
Saul Green April 03, 2011 at 01:44 AM
Max, It is about message/comment boards like this... "posting annoying Web messages ".. the point is that the FBI can investigate this anonymous form of harassment. The losers/bullies who think they are safe just because they use an alias might find out they are not as clever as they thought. My rule of thumb is that if you wouldn't sign your name to a post, then you probably shouldn't post it. Think what you want "Max" and do as you will, but you can be held accountable even if you want to convince yourself otherwise.
max April 03, 2011 at 01:54 AM
Saul, Yes of course identities can be discovered by the FBI with a warrant. I forgot to ask you, since you brought it up, where is the harassment? Or is everything harassment?
Owsley April 03, 2011 at 02:21 AM
Can anyone tell me where some more of these places are ?
sebastian dangerfield April 03, 2011 at 04:38 AM
max.... if you are going to quote the article, why not get it right? It doesnt say that a woman was on top of a man performing a sex act.' How come everyone on this site, needs to do their utmost to convict this guy. Im not endorsing it. But I dont think it needs to be made into something its not. And max... not trying to be coy here, not sure if you have ever gotten a massage, but to the best of my knowledge not too many massages are done where you have your winter coat on. Im fairly certain, that in general you get undressed. If the massuese is wearing a bra, so be it. I went to Hooters a couple months ago, and I think they wear about the same thing. Maybe patch will cover that as well. Darien man in Hooters. It wouldnt surprise me. And then people can question why I went in there. Maybe all kinds of speculation. After all, according to the 1st amendment, you can say anything you want anonymously. Great bunch of people we have here.
max April 04, 2011 at 11:20 AM
@luca, that quote was from another news source. See DarienNews or stamford advocate for this quote. So, you see, Patch may have lessened some of the details.
max April 04, 2011 at 11:27 AM
Luca, You are drifting off topic when you address the law that was broken. The point here is that Patch reported an item from the police blotter, as it and many news organizations do. A person broke the law and was caught. That is what was reported. Some people think that since it was embarrassing to the person charged with the crime should not have been reported. Others state that it should be reported and if you do not want to be in the police blotter than do not do crimes.
jeff April 04, 2011 at 12:02 PM
The difference between Poteroba and this incident is Poteroba was found GUILTY. This person "allegedly" broke the law. We are supposed to still live in a society where one is "innocent until proven guilty". If this person is found "Not Guilty" or the charges are dropped, I'm sure the Patch will issue a notice and apology to the family. After all, good reporting, as is being argued in the numerous posts, always includes accurate follow-up and final conclusion. We get great "National Enquirer" reporting but never accurate conclusion.
max April 05, 2011 at 01:09 AM
@ Jeff, Are you really just "Fair and Balanced" from above (5:55pm on Tuesday, March 29, 2011) or are you just reintroducing the same misconception of a police blotter?
jeff April 05, 2011 at 08:16 AM
Max, All I'm saying is that people thrive on reading the police blotter and condemning the person before all the facts are known. What does it accomplish? Does it really make you feel safer at night knowing the names of the individuals?
jeff April 05, 2011 at 08:19 AM
Or is it just great Cocktail conversation. From your post, it seems you have already found the person guilty before his day in court. That's the pathetic part of naming names.
max April 02, 2012 at 10:57 AM
Was there ever a follow up on this?
max April 02, 2012 at 11:00 AM
Jeff, there must have been a trial by now, what was the outcome?
Siwanoy April 11, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Chandra, are they any updates to this case? Since it was reported it must be newsworthy, so the result of the case or status of the case is newsworthy as well, no?
Siwanoy April 11, 2012 at 03:35 PM
I looked up the Darien's man name in the stamford court systems database and turned up no results... looks like charges were dropped.
Glasshouse April 11, 2012 at 04:51 PM
That is why it is such a mistake to constantly print initial charges made by DPD. The subjective stories told by DPD are often not accurate and not held up in court. Unfortunately the only thing made public is the sensational charge...not the real story. People and families are hurt. This happens all the time.
Siwanoy April 11, 2012 at 04:57 PM
Exactly. I have no problem with the media reporting arrests if they'll also report the results of the court cases, otherwise you're only showing one side.. I'd expect journalist integrity to play a role here, or at the very least for the writer/blogger/journalist to understand the power of their words.
Siwanoy April 12, 2012 at 03:44 PM
I've emailed the author of this article asking for an update, no response. Great reporting, I emailed both the Darien Times and the Darien News-Review and they emailed me back letting me know they didn't know what the result was but would find out for me.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »