FirstAlerts

Federal Hate Crime Charges Filed Over Alleged Manhattan Synagogue Attack

The Department of Justice says Larry Montes, 46, faces two counts of committing hate crimes and one count of destruction of religious property resulting in bodily injury over a disruption of a Shabbat service at Central Synagogue.

2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 18, 2026, 9:00 p.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 18, 2026, 4:40 p.m. ETWritten Aug 18, 2026, 9:26 p.m. ET
Federal prosecutors have 46-year-old Larry Montes in district court over a violent disruption during a Friday night Shabbat service at Central Synagogue in Manhattan, the announced. The said Montes faces three federal counts: two counts of committing hate crimes and one count of destruction of religious property resulting in bodily injury. According to the , Montes disrupted an ongoing worship service at Central Synagogue, damaged synagogue property, struck a 63-year-old congregant, and violently assaulted a security officer by spitting on and headbutting him. The proceeding is at the charging stage. The counts are allegations that have not been tested in court, and no finding has been made against Montes. The available material does not indicate whether Montes has entered a plea or is represented by counsel, and no response from him or a representative was available.

Earlier reports

  1. Aug 18, 2026, 9:00 p.m. ETFirst report

    Federal Hate Crime Charges Filed Over Attack at Manhattan Synagogue

    Federal prosecutors have charged Larry Montes, a 46-year-old man, with federal hate crimes over a violent disruption during a Friday night Shabbat service at Central Synagogue in Manhattan, according to the Department of Justice.

    The Department of Justice alleges that Montes disrupted an ongoing worship service, damaged synagogue property, struck a 63-year-old congregant, and violently assaulted a security officer by spitting on and headbutting him.

    Montes faces two counts of committing hate crimes and one count of destruction of religious property resulting in bodily injury.

    The case has been filed in district court, where the proceeding is at the charging stage. Charges are allegations, and they remain undecided: Montes has not been convicted of anything and is presumed innocent.

    The record available for this report does not give a date for the alleged attack, does not describe the circumstances of Montes's arrest, and does not identify a lawyer for him or include any response on his behalf.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 119 Aug 2026, 01:26current

    First published.

  2. Version 119 Aug 2026, 01:00current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.