After a two-week trial, a Nassau County Jury found our client "Not Guilty" of Driving While Intoxicated. The defendant was stopped on her way to North Shore University Hospital for driving erratically while going to see her husband who got sick earlier in the evening and was rushed to the hospital. When stopped, the police officer said that the vehicle smelled from alcohol and that the defendant stated that "She was drinking vodka all night. According to the police officer, she failed the field sobriety test given at the scene and she refused the breathalyzer at the precinct. Nassau County Criminal Defense attorney Todd Greenberg argued to the jury that the defendant was lost and not driving erratically and that she said she had "One vodka earlier in the night". After deliberating for two (2) days, the jury rendered a "Not Guilty" verdict for the crime of Driving While Intoxicated but did find the defendant "Guilty" of Driving While Impaired, a Violation and not a crime. Significantly, a motion to vacate the conviction to Driving While Impaired is being prepared in that the presiding judge wrongfully excused a juror without making the detailed inquiry required by the Criminal Procedure Law. Once again, based on the hard work and experience of criminal defense attorney Todd Greenberg, our client avoided a criminal record. Further, the fight continues in our attempt to get the Driver While Impaired dismissed! If you are charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), Driving Under The Influence (DUI) or any crime, call attorney Todd Greenberg for the best result at 718-268-0400 or visit us at QueensLaw.com.
Many times in a criminal case, it is better to do nothing and wait. That is the advice that New York Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg gave his client in a DWI case in Suffolk County, which resulted in a dismissal of all charges based on a Violation of the Defendant's Speedy Trial Rights. The Defendant was arrested on July 6th, 2013 and charged with Two Counts of Driving While Intoxicated based on alleged erratic driving, statements made and a reading of 0.16% on the Breath Test. A motion to suppress statements was held on July 8, 2014 and the Motion was granted whereby a statement made by the Defendant was suppressed based upon a Violation of her Constitutional Rights. The Judge then marked the case for trial and advised that the defense would get a date in the mail to appear for jury selection. How ever, that date never came. Our client was anxious to resolve the case and insisted that Mr. Greenberg contact the Court so that the matter can be resolved. Based on his extensive experience in the criminal justice system, Mr. Greenberg urged the client to sit tight and not say a word and allow the time to accumulate. Although the client kept requesting a resolution, Mr. Greenberg prevailed and the client waited for that trial date. Eventually, on June 16th, 2916, a little shy of two (2) years, Mr. Greenberg received a notice that the case will appear for trial. Too late! Mr. Greenberg filed a Motion to dismiss based on a violation of the Defendant's Statutory and Constitutional Right to a Speedy Trial which was granted in its entirety and the case was dismissed on September 13, 2016. An experienced criminal attorney not only knows how to fight a case in Court, but also knows when to remain silent when it is to the advantage of a client. Call Queens Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg for help if needed. (718)268-0400, www.QueensLaw.com.
Queens DWI attorney Todd Greenberg obtained a dismissal of a complaint charging Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Drugs based on insufficiency of the Criminal Court Complaint. The complaint alleged that the Defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident, that the Defendant made an incriminating statement that she was "confused" and the arresting officer stated in the Criminal Court Complaint that he observed the Defendant to have "watery eyes, was excessively talkative, had slurred speech, mismatching stories, and was unable to stand on her own, and was combative". However, conspicuously absent, and defective to the legal sufficiency of the complaint was any allegation whatsoever that the Defendant ingested a drug, that the drug ingested was prescribed by the Public Health Law and that after ingesting the drug, the Defendant operated a motor vehicle impaired by such ingestion. Indeed, the complaint failed to mention the drug involved! Moving immediately for a dismissal of the complaint based on applicable law, attorney Todd Greenberg was granted a dismissal within one month after the arrest. Further, a Federal Civil Rights suit was instituted for damages for False Arrest and False Imprisonment based on the acts of the police officer in arresting this Defendant without "Probable Cause". Once again, knowledge of the Law and immediate action in Court has resulted in a dismissal of a DWI charge against our client. Call us. (718)268-0400, www.QueensLaw.com.
Two Defendants, in unrelated cases, who both maintained their innocence to charges of Driving While Intoxicated, had their DWI cases dismissed and sealed on the same date in New York County. Both cases were dismissed based upon a violation of the Constitutional Rights of those Defendants to a Speedy Trial. In each case, DWI defense attorney Todd Greenberg was ready to proceed on each and every occasion, forcing the District Attorney to be ready for Hearings and Trial. On each such date, the People were not ready to proceed resulting in extensive Motion Practice setting forth that the Prosecutions' delay violated Constitutional Speedy Trial Rights mandating dismissal. Although dismissal of both cases was adamantly opposed by the District Attorney the Judge granted the Motion of DWI attorney Todd Greenberg for dismissal. Once again, preparation and knowledge of the law has resulted in a favorable disposition for our clients. Call criminal defense attorney Todd Greenberg at (718)268-0400 or visit us at www.QueensLaw.com
All DWI Charges Dismissed After Suppression Of IDTU Video Tape Based On Violation Of Right To Counsel
The Defendant was arrested on October 4th, 2013 for Driving While Intoxicated and passing a red traffic signal. In suppressing the video tape, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the charges, the Court noted that "…at the time the Defendant was offered the Intoxilyzer test, he cursed at the officers and was generally uncooperative and argumentative." Indeed, in our forty (40) years of experience in handling DWI cases, without a doubt this tape was the worst ever! However, the tape indicated that when the Defendant was first asked whether he would take the Intoxilyzer Test, the Defendant agreed to take the test. However, prior to doing so, the Defendant requested to speak with his attorney and provided the officer with the name of his attorney and the law firm he was affiliated with—which was Addabbo and Greenberg. Most significantly, the Court noted that "the Officer, however, took no action with respect to the Defendant's request." Thereafter, even though the Defendant was again asked to take the test, he replied "yes" and the test was administered and resulted in a high reading. Once again, knowledge of the law in this area was crucial: DWI attorneys Todd Greenberg argued that it was the duty of the police to make a reasonable effort to contact the Defendant's attorney under these circumstances. Despite the Defendant's "belligerent conduct" it was argued that he made a clear request for counsel only thirty (30) minutes after his arrest and the officer neither offered to contact the attorneys at Addabbo and Greenberg nor allowed the Defendant to make a call. Evidence Suppressed! Once again, knowledge of the law, persistence and dedication to our client resulted in a dismissal of a driving while intoxicated charge. Call attorney Todd Greenberg at (718)268-0400 or reach us at QueensLaw.com for top representation in Vehicular Crimes.
Once again, persistence on the part of the attorneys at Addabbo and Greenberg resulted in a dismissal, after more than one year of litigation, of the charge of Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated as well as Operating a Motor Vehicle While Impaired by Alcohol. The Defendant was charged on December 29 th, 2013 after being stopped at a "check point" and after the Intoxilyzer Machine registered a .09% by weight of alcohol in his blood. Throughout motion practice, criminal defense attorneys Todd Greenberg refused an offer of Driving While Impaired on the ground that the Defendant was, simply, not intoxicated. After several adjournments in the Trial Part, the case was marked ready and, again, our attorneys refused any plea offer and demanded a trial. On February 24 th, 2015, the case was sent to a Jury Part for Trial. Again, the offer was refused and instead of proceeding to a trial, the People conceded that they could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which resulted in a complete dismissal of all charges. Needless to say, our client, a Licensed Stock Broker, was ecstatic and vindicated! If you are charged with Driving While Intoxicated you need attorneys who know the law and are willing to go all the way to prove you are not guilty. At Addabbo and Greenberg, we have that experience as attested to once again by our very happy client. Call (718)268-0400 or visit us at www.queenslaw.com if you find yourself in this most unfortunate circumstance.
An incriminating statement by a motorist who was arrested for DWI was "Suppressed" and the District Attorney of Suffolk County is barred from using the statement at trial. A good lawyer knows the law and how to cross-examine a witness. A great lawyer knows when to say nothing and rest on the weakness on the evidence presented by the District Attorney. That is exactly what happened when attorney Todd Greenberg did not cross-examine the arresting officer in a drunk driving case during a pretrial hearing involving the voluntariness of the statement. The motorist allegedly told the arresting officer, after being stopped, that "I had two beers and a red bull with Hennessey". At the Huntley/Dunaway Hearing, the District Attorney meticulously took the arresting officer through the facts to show probable cause. However, the District Attorney never elicited the statement for which the Defendant was given Criminal Procedural Law §710.30 Notice, but elicited an entirely different statement. Instead of cross examining the officer to allow him to correct himself, criminal defense attorney Todd Greenberg decided not to ask any questions and argued to the Suffolk County District Court Judge that the District Attorney failed to meet the Burden of Proof at this Hearing. MOTION GRANTED! The Judge ruled in the Defendant's favor, suppressing the alleged statement, giving the Defendant an extremely better chance to prevail at trial. Extensive knowledge of the law by the attorneys at Addabbo and Greenberg once again resulted in an extremely favorable result. For the best results possible in your unfortunate situation, contact Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg.
"Bombshell Pot Defense" results in Deadlocked Jury with regard to Aggravated Vehicular Homicide charge and all related charges in Southern State crash that resulted in four deaths
Jury Deadlocked with regard to all charges involving marijuana impairment including most serious charge of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide. The so called controversial "Pot Defense" presented by New York Criminal Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg was based on scientific studies as explained to the Jury by a highly qualified Yale Professor. If convicted of top count Beer would have faced up to 25 years. Beer was convicted of the lesser charges of Manslaughter in the second degree based on reckless conduct.
Breath Test Result of .19% Suppressed in DWI Case on Ground that Defendant's Right to Counsel was Violated
On July 8, 2013 a Queens Criminal Court Judge granted the motion of Queens Criminal Defense Attorney Todd D. Greenberg to suppress the results of a breathalyzer on the ground that the Defendant's limited right to counsel was violated. After a fact finding hearing and legal argument based on extensive research on this issue, the Judge held that Defendant's right to counsel was violated when the Defendant, at the breath test, stated "I would like a lawyer present". Attorney Todd D. Greenberg provided case law to the Court that established a limited right to counsel where the Defendant requests counsel. In the case at bar, the Court held that "the Defendant repeatedly attempted to invoked his limited right to counsel by requesting that his attorney be present and police officers (names omitted) ignored these requests." Once again, based upon knowledge of the law in Driving While Intoxicated cases, a major part of evidence against this Defendant in a Drunk Driving case, which was wrongfully and unconstitutionally obtained, was suppressed. For best results in a criminal case call Todd D. Greenberg, Esq. 718-268-0400.
The Defendant was arrested on July 30 th, 2011 and charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under the Influence of Alcohol. Upon being retained, DWI Attorney Todd Greenberg reviewed the complaint and noticed immediately that it was legally insufficient. Even though the Defendant was in a serious accident, it appeared that he was arrested solely on the ground that he refused to submit to a blood test and made the statement "I had about three beers four hours ago". After extensive research and the filing of a legal motion to dismiss, DWI Attorney Todd Greenberg urged the Court to dismiss the charges on the ground that the Complaint failed to alleged that the Defendant operated the motor vehicle, there was no indicia or signs of Defendant's alleged intoxication and, even though the Defendant stated that he had drinks, there was no showing in the complaint that the Defendant's operation and driving were contemporaneous. On January 12 th, 2012, Judge Lenora Gerald, Judge of the Criminal Court, Queens County, in a written decision, dismissed the DWI charge exactly for the reasons put forth by Mr. Greenberg. Defendant was overwhelmed with joy when the Judge announced, "case dismissed". Once again, knowledge of the law and the ability to draft a Motion to Dismiss with particularity resulted in a favorable ending for a client who was wrongfully and improperly charged for DWI. Further, a Civil Action for False Arrest is going to be filed against the New York City Police who arrested this Defendant without any indicia of intoxication.
As a result of years of hard work in three separate cases, legal victories were obtained with two complete dismissals of Driving While Intoxicated Criminal charges and a dismissal of an alleged Refusal to take the Breath Test at the Motor Vehicle Bureau. In case number one (1), the Defendant was charged on October 30, 2010 with Operating a Motor Vehicle While Intoxicated. From the outset, the DWI attorneys at Addabbo and Greenberg argued that there was simply no evidence of operation and intoxication. On December 15th, 2011, the District Attorney stated, on the eve of Trial, that they were dismissing the case because they could not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt--- exactly what the defense position was from the beginning. In case number two (2), the Judge dismissed all Driving While Intoxicated charges pursuant to the Defense Motion that the Complaint was insufficient as a matter of Law and based on hearsay. In case number three (3), after a Refusal Hearing, DWI defense attorney Todd Greenberg moved the Administrative Judge to dismiss the Administrative charges on the ground that the police officer failed to establish "reasonable cause" to believe the Defendant was driving while intoxicated. Once again, the best possible results were obtained in a DWI case based upon the knowledge and experience of the DWI attorneys at Addabbo and Greenberg.
The Defendant, eighteen years old when arrested for Driving while Intoxicated, was found "Not Guilty" after Trial on March 24, 2011 in Criminal Court, Queens County. The Defendant was alleged to have been driving approximately 100 miles per hour on Cross Bay Boulevard when he was pulled over by the police after he made an abrupt turn and spun around going in the opposite direction. The Officer, a Captain, testified that the Defendant had a "strong odor of alcohol on his breath, bloodshot eyes and slurred speech." The Defendant stated he had "one beer." The strategy of defense attorney Todd Greenberg was to show that the Defendant had full control of his vehicle when he made this maneuver and made the maneuver intentionally. On Cross Examination, the Officer testified that the Defendant was in control of his vehicle when he made the turn and that it was a turn like you would see a "secret service agent" make in an emergency. Although the defendant admitted to having one bottle of beer, Attorney Greenberg successfully argued that the actions of the defendant that night was not reckless driving by a drunk individual, but was reckless driving by a person who intentionally drove his vehicle in that manner. It should be noted that the area where this occurred, Cross Bay Boulevard, has been historically known as a speeding area due to the straight highway and lack of pedestrian traffic. Once again, instead of having a criminal record, knowledge of the law and a prepared presentation resulted in a verdict of "not guilty" for a client of Addabbo and Greenberg. (The defendant was found guilty of speeding)
Knowledge of the Driving While Intoxicated Laws, as well as extensive preparation and cross-examination at a Pre-Trial Hearing, has resulted in a dismissal of all Driving While Intoxicated charges against Addabbo and Greenberg's Client. The allegations were that the Defendant failed to signal when entering into traffic from a parked position and the police observed the Defendant to be in an intoxicated condition. In addition, the Defendant refused to take a Breath Test and made the statements "I had two beers prior to driving." The New York Court of Appeals, People v. Cruz, defined intoxication as "...a greater degree of impairment which is reached when the driver has voluntarily consumed alcohol to the extent that he is incapable of employing the physical and mental abilities which he is expected to posses in order to operate a vehicle as a reasonable and prudent driver." Knowing the law, at a Pre-Trial Hearing, Attorney Todd Greenberg elicited during cross-examination the following testimony of the arresting officer: "that the motorist was proceeding in a normal fashion after pulling out from the curb;" that the police officer did not observe the motorist passing over a yellow line;" "that the motorist did not strike any vehicles;" "that the motorist complied with the Police Officer's directions to pull over;" " that the motorist did not fumble any papers while looking through his wallet to get his license;" "that the motorist did not stumble out of his car and got out of his car as a ordinary and reasonable person;" "that the motorist followed all of the police instructions." The bottom line is that at the Pre-Trial Hearing it was established that the Defendant was operating his vehicle as a "reasonable and prudent person" would. Based on experience, knowledge of the Law and a planned cross-examination, a client of Addabbo and Greenberg had his DWI case dismissed prior to Trial.
A thorough investigation of the facts of this case, along with knowledge of the law, saved this defendant from a Felony conviction for Driving While Intoxicated. The Defendant was arrested and charged with Operating a Motor Vehicle While Under The Influence Of Alcohol as a Felony due to a prior Misdemeanor conviction for the same crime. He was arrested in front of his house, in his vehicle that was running, sleeping behind the wheel of his car. The defendant's prior attorney urged the defendant to plead guilty to Felony D.W.I. because "once you are caught behind the wheel and the car is running, you are automatically guilty of operating the vehicle". When Attorney Todd D. Greenberg heard this advice, he practically fell off his chair. The defendant advised Mr. Greenberg that he was cementing the sidewalk in the front of his house, when, after the day's work was done, he took some beers, sat in his car in front of his house and started the car so he could listen to music. The law in New York is not, as the prior attorney said, that "if the car is running you are automatically operating it". The law specifically states that the courts must look at the "intent" of the defendant as to whether or not he intended to drive the vehicle. In this case, the "intent" of the defendant was just to simply hang out in his car and not move it. These facts were established by a thorough investigation of the defendant's neighbors, pictures of the defendant's house and testimony from family members who clearly stated that the defendant worked all day on cementing his sidewalk and then relaxed in his car after the job. Upon presentation of the facts of this case to the District Attorney, all charges were dismissed on June 21st, 2010. Instead of having a Felony Conviction, due to the experience and expertise of Attorney Todd D. Greenberg in this area, all charges have been dismissed and sealed.
Evidence Of Refusal Of Breath Test Suppressed: Attorney Greenberg Wins Hearing Without Saying One Word
A good lawyer knows the law and how to cross-examine a witness. A great lawyer knows when to say nothing and rest on the weakness of the evidence presented by the District Attorney. That is exactly what happened when Attorney Todd Greenberg did not cross-examine an Arresting Officer in a Drunk Driving case during Pre-Trial Hearings. The Defendant was charged with Driving While Intoxicated as a Misdemeanor. The Defendant refused to take to Breath Test which would measure his blood/alcohol content and the District Attorney wanted to use the fact of that Refusal as evidence at the trial. A Pre-Trial Hearing was granted and the Police Officer testified that he actually observed the Defendant in a black Toyota make a u-turn from where he was parked thereby causing an accident. The Police Officer then testified that the Defendant's eyes were blood-shot and watery, that the Defendant had alcohol on his breathe and that the Defendant "refused the blood alcohol test". Most significantly, at no time was testimony presented to the Court of what the Defendant actually stated in response to the Police Officer's request to take the test. At that point, the record consisted solely of the Police Officer's conclusion that the Defendant refused to take the test without any facts whatsoever as to what the Defendant did or said for the Court to draw that conclusion. Instead of cross-examining the Police Officer which would give the Police Officer the opportunity to be more specific, Attorney Greenberg asked for a recess, spoke to his client, and advised the client that there should be no further questions of this Police Officer. In a Memorandum of Law that was prepared after the Hearing, Attorney Greenberg pointed out to the Court that the Hearing record was devoid of any testimony whatsoever as to how, or even if, the Defendant refused to take the test. The Police Officer's testimony failed to establish the manner or words with which the Defendant allegedly refused to take the chemical test.
In its Decision and Order, the Honorable Robert M. Raciti, Judge of the Criminal Court, Queens County, noted that "There was no cross-examination" and then found that "…there was no evidence in the record concerning how the Defendant is alleged to have manifested his refusal…". The Court stated that "The People's witnesses must testify as to facts rather than conclusions, in order for the People to meet their burden." After the suppression of this important evidence on June 17, 2009, the Defendant was allowed to plead guilty to Driving While Impaired, a non-criminal offense. Extensive knowledge of the law by the Attorney's at Addabbo & Greenberg allowed their client to avoid a criminal conviction for Driving While Intoxicated.
The Defendant was charged with Two Counts of Operating a Motor Vehicle while Intoxicated and Operating a Motor Vehicle while Impaired. It was alleged that on December 5, 2009, at the Queens Midtown Tunnel, the Defendant was operating his vehicle when a Police Officer observed the Defendant and alleged that the Defendant had watery and bloodshot eyes and an odor of alcohol on his breath. Thereafter, the Defendant blew a .11 at Central Testing. The attorneys at Addabbo & Greenberg prepared extensive pre-trial Motions which sought dismissal based upon a violation of the Defendant's right to a Speedy Trial on the ground that the Complaint was insufficient. On May 14, 2010, the Judge granted the Motion to Dismiss based on the default of the Prosecution for failing to answer the defense Motion in a timely manner. Instead of suffering serious consequences with regard to a Driving While Intoxicated conviction, the charges against this Defendant were dismissed in its entirety. Not only do the attorneys of Addabbo & Greenberg fight DWI cases on the facts, but also file all appropriate Motions on behalf of its clients which, more times than one would think, results in a procedural default and a dismissal of the charges.
On March 18, 2009 immediately prior to trial, the Queens District Attorney dismissed all DWI charges against the Defendant who was permitted to enter a plea of guilty to the Traffic Infraction of failing to signal. The Defendant was arrested and charged pursuant to VTL §1192.3, Operating a Motor Vehicle while under the Influence of Alcohol, a Misdemeanor. It was alleged that the Defendant failed to signal while making a right turn and then drove over double yellow lines. When stopped by the Police, it was alleged that he was intoxicated in that he had a strong odor of alcohol beverage on his breathe and blood-shot watery eyes. The Intoxilyzer exam was refused. At a pre-trial Hearing in this matter, the Police Officer testified that he observed the Defendant for at least three blocks before being pulled over. During cross-examination, Attorney Todd Greenberg elicited from the Police Officer that the Defendant was operating the vehicle in a "regular and prudent manner", for that three blocks, which considerably weakened the District Attorney's case. This case is an example of how important proper Legal representation is from the inception of a Driving While Intoxicated case and having experienced counsel at Pre-Trial Hearings.
On September 9, 2008 a Queens Jury returned a not guilty verdict on all criminal charges arising from the arrest of the Defendant, a liquor license holder and bar/restaurant owner. The Defendant was arrested on December 12, 2006 and charged with Driving While Intoxicated, a Class-A Misdemeanor, under two separate and distinct theories: Common Law DWI and Blood Alcohol Content of more than .08%. The evidence established that the Defendant did take a chemical test of his blood at the Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit which registered a .09%. Attorney Todd D. Greenberg attacked the result of the Chemical Test/Intoxilyzer Machine by pointing out on cross-examination the Arresting Officer that although the reading was .09% at the time of the test, approximately one hour after the arrest, that does not necessarily mean that the reading of .09 was valid at the time of the operation of the vehicle. Mr. Greenberg was able to elicit from the witness that depending on a person's rate of metabolism and the time when the person had a drink and ate, that due to the absorption of the alcohol from the stomach to the blood system, the blood alcohol level could have been lower at the time of operation than at the time of the test. Although the Defendant admitted to the Police that he had consumed alcohol, the District Attorney could not establish the time that Defendant was drinking and, therefore, was not able to argue to the jury as to whether the .09 reading would have been higher or lower at the time the Defendant was operating the motor vehicle. Additionally, the Defendant was charged with Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Vehicle in the Third Degree, based on the fact that he had several suspensions of his license. Most recently, the United States Supreme Court held in the Crawford case that a Defendant in a criminal case has a right to confront the witnesses against him. The District Attorney attempted to introduce into evidence an Affidavit of Regularity/Mailing of the Motor Vehicle Bureau to establish that the Defendant was mailed a letter of suspension and therefore knew or had reason to know of his suspension, a material element of that charge. Based on a Crawford objection raised by Mr. Greenberg that evidence was not permitted to be seen by the Jury. Without that necessary element, Mr. Greenberg's Motion to Dismiss the Misdemeanor charge was granted prior to submission of the case to the Jury. Although the Defendant was acquitted of all Misdemeanor charges and has no criminal record, he was found guilty of a lesser charge of Driving While Impaired, a violation and not a crime, which has no effect on his liquor license.
On April 18, 2008, a Jury acquitted a Defendant charged with Driving While Intoxicated, Driving While Impaired and Disorderly Conduct. The Police alleged that the Defendant stopped at a Stop Sign and then rolled into the intersection and stayed there for 30 seconds ignoring a Police order to move. The Defendant exited his vehicle in a belligerent manner and, according to the Police, stated "I wasn't driving". The police testimony consisted of two Police Officers who contended that the Defendant came out of the driver's seat, unsteady on his feet, with a strong smell of alcohol on his breath and blood-shot eyes. The Defense produced a witness from a home in the neighborhood that disputed the Police account and stated that Defendant's car was actually double-parked when the Police arrived and the Defendant was outside the vehicle. The Defendant refused a Chemical test of his blood at Central Booking and a videotape was taken. Although the Defendant was agitated on the tape, Attorney Todd D. Greenberg painted out to the Jury that his eyes were not blood-shot, he was steady on his feet, and his speech was not slurred. The videotape was quite unique: it showed the Defendant with his pants around his ankles. In opening statements, the District Attorney suggested that the Defendant was so drunk he could not pull up his pants and told the Jury that the Defendant was "caught with his pants down", On cross-examination, the Defense established that the Defendant was wearing baggy pants, the Police took his belt causing his pants to fall, and, because the Defendant was belligerent, he was hand-cuffed behind his back and could not pick-up his pants. Apparently, it was the District Attorney who was "caught with his pants down" and not the Defendant based upon the acquittal.
Breathalyzer Results Suppressed;
Police Lacked Probable Cause to Stop Motorist
The Defendant was arrested on April 20, 2006 at 4 a.m. and charged with Driving While Intoxicated. The arresting Police Officer stated that the Defendant's vehicle was swerving and that the Breathalyzer Test revealed a blood alcohol content of .197%, more than twice the legal limit. At a Pre-Trial Hearing requested by Attorney Todd Greenberg, the Officer testified under cross-examination that the Defendant was "swerving within his lane". When further cross-examined about how far the car swerved, the Police Officer did not know. The Defense argued that the Police lacked Probable Cause to stop the Defendant because if a person allegedly "swerved within" his lane, he was actually staying within the traffic lanes showing an ability to operate the vehicle. Further, there was no testimony as to how far the car allegedly "swerved". On January 22, 2008, a Criminal Court Judge of Queens County suppressed the results of the Breathalyzer Test and ruled that the evidence of an alleged blood alcohol content of .197% was not admissible at the trial of this action based upon a stop that was not supported by Probable Cause.
On December 3, 2007, the Defendant, our client, was acquitted by a Queens Jury of Driving While Intoxicated and Driving While Impaired. The arresting officer testified that he pulled the Defendant over after failing to signal when the Defendant was leaving a parking spot. Although the Police Officer testified that the Defendant had blood-shot eyes, alcohol on his breath and was unsteady on his feet, Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg established that the Defendant was properly operated his motor vehicle for three blocks after the initial observation. Further, the credibility of the arresting Officer was questioned with regard to his personal opinion about drinking and driving. Significantly, on October 18, 2006, the week prior to the arrest in this case, this Defendant was acquitted by a Queens Jury of Driving While Intoxicated. (see below) This case arose when on October 23, 2006, this Defendant was arrested by the same officer who told the Defendant "Let's see Greenberg get you out of this one". The Verdict speaks for itself.
Todd Greenberg's successful defense of a college student charged with DWI and resisting arrest results in acquittal by jury.
On June 22, 2007 a Queens jury acquitted our client, a 19-year old college student charged with driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest, which allegedly occurred on April 27, 2006. Out client was a passenger in a SUV when the driver was pulled over and arrested for DWI. According to the Defendant's testimony at trial, he was asked to step out of the car and while the diver of the vehicle was being arrested, this Defendant was speaking to a Police Officer. Ultimately, after the arrest, that Police Officer gave the Defendant the keys to the driver's vehicle and told him to move the car. The Defendant proceeded to drive the SUV approximately half a block and was then pulled over by another Police Officer who arrested him for driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest. The Police Officer's charge of DWI was based upon a strong order of alcohol on the Defendant's breath and blood-shot, watery eyes. The Police Officer also charged the Defendant with attempting to flee the scene. The Defendant refused to take the Breathalyzer Test and testified that he did not take the test for two reasons: First, after the earlier scenario, he did not trust the Police, which defense attorney Todd Greenberg argued to the jury was quite understandable under the circumstances. Second, the Intoxicated Driver Testing Unit was so filthy that the Defendant would not put his mouth on any instrument. Additionally, the Police did not conduct any Physical Coordination Tests at the IDTU Unit because of a "back log". During the People's case, two Police Officers testified that they received 6 hours and 15 hours respectively of overtime based on the arrest of the original driver and this Defendant. Attorney Greenberg argued in his summation to the jury that, if the Police Officers earned 6 and 15 hours of overtime, there should have been enough time to conduct a simple Physical Coordination Test, which testimony revealed takes approximately 20 minutes. Mr. Greenberg argued that the jury was deprived of critical evidence, a videotape of the physical Coordination Test and, after speaking to the Jury after the verdict, the jury confirmed that the Police should have at least taken the 20 minutes to give the Physical Coordination Test.
On March 7, 2007, a judge of the criminal court, Queens County, in a non-jury trial, acquitted a New York attorney of all criminal charges relating to his arrest for driving while intoxicated. The Prosecution presented two Police Officers who testified that at approximately 11:30 a.m. on Woodhaven Boulevard, they approached a scene of an accident. A Porsche creased into two parked cards and found the Defendant, outside the vehicle. The Officers stated that they smelled alcohol on the Defendant's breath and that he had blood-shot eyes and was unsteady on his feet. The Defendant stated at the scene that he was hit by another vehicle. During cross-examination, Defense Attorney Todd Greenberg established that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet due to the fact that he hit his head on an air-bag that deployed during the accident. Further, pictures and hospital records were introduced which established that the Defendant was taken to the hospital prior to central booking due to a severe eye injury which accounted for his red and blood-shot eyes. Further, during cross examination of the Police Officers, the accident was reconstructed, which was inconsistent with the People's theory that the Defendant was drunk and merely hit tow parked cards and was consistent with the fact that there was another vehicle involved which would eliminate that issue of erratic driving. The Defendant did not testify. He was convicted of driving while impaired, a violation, not a crime.
On January 22, 2007 a Criminal Court Judge granted the Trial Motion of Todd D. Greenberg to dismiss Drunk Driving charges against the Defendant granting a Trial Order of Dismissal. Mr. Greenberg argued that under the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law a person must be "actually impaired" to the extent that his "physical and mental ability" which such person is expected to possess in order to operate a vehicle, were impaired. The trial testimony was that the Police Officer pulled the Defendant over for a defective light, having nothing to do with the ability to drive. Further, although the Police Officer testified that the Defendant had an alcohol smell on his breath and blood-shot and watery eyes, the testimony elicited during Court Examination was that the defendant's speech was clear and his balance was stable. The Judge granted the Defense Motion to Dismiss the case after the People presented their evidence based on the lack of evidence that the Defendant was "actually impaired".
Todd Greenberg convinces jury that his client was not guilty of Drunk Driving due to lack of evidence presented by the District Attorney.
On October 18, 2006, the Defendant, our client, was acquitted by a Queens Jury of Driving while Intoxicated. The Defendant refused the Breathalyzer Test and the Police Officer said he observed the Defendant swerving over a yellow divider and, when stopped, smelled alcohol on his breath and had blood-shot eyes. The evidence revealed that the Defendant's balance, speech and appearance, along with his attitude were normal. The Defense was able to argue that the mere smell of alcohol does not mean a person is driving while intoxicated to the extent necessary to make a person guilty of that crime. Additionally, with regard to the blood-shot and watery eyes, the Defendant was exhibited to the Jury during the trial to show that his eyes were blood-shot all the time. In a discussion of the case with Jurors after the not-guilty verdict, the Jurors said the District Attorney did not present enough evidence of Defendant's guilt to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - exactly the argument made by Attorney Todd Greenberg.
Our client is acquitted of DWI charges when defense attorney Todd Greenberg proves that the sobriety tests were administered improperly.
On September 5, 2006, our client was acquitted in Nassau County District Court of all charges involving his arrest for Driving While Intoxicated. During the trial, Attorney Todd Greenberg challenged the results of the Standard Field Sobriety Test, as administered by the Nassau Police, i.e., the one leg stand test, the walk and turn test and the finger to the nose test. During cross examination, the arresting officer admitted that he administered the test improperly. It should be noted that the knowledge and information used to cross examine the police officer was obtained by Mr. Greenberg's attendance at the Driving While Intoxicated Trial Seminar sponsored by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Las Vegas in October of 2005. A lesson well learned by defense attorney Todd Greenberg.