DWI charges, Personal Injury claims and Criminal defense verdicts handled in New York, Queens, Nassau and Suffolk
DWI charges are serious. DWI Attorneys, Addabbo & Greenberg have a proven track record of success in defending DWI charges in New York, Queens, Nassau and Suffolk.
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.
Criminal DWI Charges Dismissed Prior To Trial
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.
Motorist, A Liquor License Holder, Is Aquitted Of All Criminal Charges Relating To DWI Arrest
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.
Not Guilty Verdict for Motorist Charged with Driving While Intoxicated
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 baggie 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.
Defendant acquitted by Jury of Driving While Intoxicated - Second arrest by same Police Officer.
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.
Attorney Acquitted of all Criminal Charges Related to DWI
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.
Todd D. Greenberg's Motion to Dismiss Drunk Driving Charges Granted based upon a lack of evidence.
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.
