Murder Charges Dismissed On October 17, 2008
The Defendant, charged with Murder, was in Court on October 17, 2008 wherein the District Attorney dismissed Two Counts of Murder (Intentional Murder and Depraved Indifference Murder) against him.
The case, as reported in the New York Daily News, on Saturday, December 3, 2005, alleged that the Defendant shot and killed another, a Computer Programmer, because he tried to bum a cigarette from him. Extensive pre-trial Hearings were held wherein Attorney Todd D. Greenberg alleged that a videotape statement obtained by the Defendant was not "voluntarily" made and was obtained in violation of the Defendant's Constitutional rights. Although the presiding Justice denied the Motion, Attorney Greenberg was of the opinion that the argument was extremely viable and could be argued in front of the Jury as well as on an Appeal if necessary. Immediately prior to trial, a Plea Bargain was reached wherein the Murder charges were dismissed and the Defendant pled guilty to Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree and was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, of which he already served 3 years.
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.
Queens Family Court Judge Acquits Teen Of Robbery And Assault
On July 2, 2008, after a trial that spanned approximately two weeks a Queens Family Court Judge acquitted a 15-year old teen of Robbery and Assault charges. The Juvenile allegedly committed the robbery on February 8, 2008 when he, and at least nine other persons, approached the Complainant, assaulted him and took his cell phone. Attorney Todd Greenberg argued a classic mis-identification case. Cross-examination of the Complainant, as well as an alleged eye-witness Security Guard, established that the Security Guard actually never saw the robbery and the Complainant saw the Juvenile, not at the time of the robbery, but shortly thereafter and only saw the side of the Juvenile's face. Further cross-examination revealed that the perpetrators of the crime were wearing "Hoodies" which would further hinder any identification. At the end of the case the Queens Family Court Judge complemented Mr. Greenberg for his presentation and defense of the Juvenile in this case. All charges were dismissed and the Juvenile released from custody. A co-defendant pled guilty prior to trial.
Judge acquits Defendant of Menacing And Weapon Charges after a 3-day trial.
On May 7, 2008, the Defendant was found “Not Guilty” of all criminal charges stemming from an alleged attack by him against a neighbor with a machete. The Defendant was charged with Menacing and Criminal Possession of a Weapon regarding an incident that occurred on Saturday, September 9, 2006 immediately outside the Defendant’s home which is attached to the home of the Complaining Witness. The testimony revealed a long on-going dispute between the two families which culminated with words between the Defendant’s father and the Complainant wherein the Defendant was arrested and accused of coming out of his home with a machete and threatening his neighbor. The Police arrived and described a disorderly and violent crowd outside the Defendant’s house and the Police went inside and retrieved a machete which was introduced into evidence. Attorney Todd D. Greenberg attacked the credibility of the Witness and pointed out to the Court that on cross-examination two of the three witnesses testified that the Defendant never left the doorway of his home and did not exit his home, as the District Attorney alleged, to go after the Complainant. Further, after comparison of the testimony of the three alleged eye-witnesses, it was pointed out to the Court that there were major inconsistencies and that the Court should conclude that the testimony is false. On an interesting note, evidence was introduced that in the Indo Caribbean community, a machete, also known as “cutlass” is used for many things including cooking, gardening and as a household utensil. That argument was used to explain the presence of a machete in the Defendant’s house.
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.
Assault Charges Dismissed: District Attorney Failed to comply with strict requirements of Criminal Procedure Law
On February 6, 2008 all criminal charges of Assault were dismissed against the client of Addabbo & Greenberg and his records were sealed. The Defendant was originally charged on April 15, 2007 with an Assault allegedly arising from a dispute over a parking spot. It should be noted that the Defendant absolutely denied his involvement and an Alibi defense was prepared for trial. During Motion practice, after extensive investigation, it was discovered by Attorney Todd D. Greenberg that there was a photographic identification procedure utilized for which the District Attorney failed to give proper written Notice under the Criminal Procedure Law. A Motion to preclude any identification testimony at the trial was filed and, after oral argument, the Judge granted Attorney Greenberg’s Motion and precluded the District Attorney from offering any testimony from any witness who viewed a photograph of the Defendant of which the Defense was not informed. After the ruling, the District Attorney could not proceed and voluntarily dismissed all charges. Although Addabbo & Greenberg was ready to proceed to trial with a strong defense, a Motion based on Legal Principles caused the dismissal of all charges and a trial was not necessary.
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.
Undocumented Alien Worker receives $3 million settlement
A $3 million settlement was reached prior to trial in February 2007 for the family of an undocumented alien working in the country for two months prior to his death caused by a defective scaffold.
Judge Dismisses 291 Count Indictment in the Middle of Trial
In the midst of trial, Judge Scarano granted Todd Greenberg’s motion to dismiss a 291 count indictment against his client, Mario Sclafani, the clerk of scales for the New York Racing Association. In granting the motion, Mr. Greenberg proved to the court that the methodology used by the investigators was terribly flawed and inaccurate.
Five Assault and Harassment Charges Dismissed on Motion for Speedy Trial
Our firm was retained to represent a Defendant who was charged and arrested on five separate occasions with either assaulting and/or harassing the Complainant, who was a fellow-member of Alcohol Anonymous. Our client denied the charges. There was an on-going feud between the parties and the District Attorney was adamant in its prosecution. When the case was finally marked for trial, the People were not ready on five separate occasions even though they previously stated they were ready to satisfy the statutory requirements. Attorney Todd Greenberg argued that even though the District Attorney’s stated their readiness in open court to satisfy statutory requirements, the statement was illusory, in that the People were not actually or really ready to proceed. On November 15, 2007, all charges were dismissed against out client, the Defendant and the record sealed.
Addabbo & Greenberg Obtains $500,000 Settlement for a Construction Worker at JFK Airport
July, 2007. In a building located at JFK International Airport, owned by American Airlines, Plaintiff, an Electrician was working at the site feeding cable wires through the ceiling. While walking backwards and looking up to the ceiling to assess the patch of the cable, the Plaintiff fell backwards into an unprotected elevator shaft that was under construction. Testimony at various depositions held by the Attorneys of Addabbo & Greenberg uncovered a dispute between the employees of Schindler Elevator Corp. and the contractor as to the type of barricade safety device that should be used at the shaft, resulting in Schindler Elevator Corp. employees intentionally removing the required barricades, leaving the shaft unprotected. As a result, Plaintiff fell approximately 6 feet, striking his head and injuring his shoulder. He suffered a scar on the forehead of approximately 4 inches and had to undergo arthroscopic surgery for a left shoulder impingement and partial Rotator Cuff tear. It should be noted that Plaintiff suffered an injury to that shoulder approximately 4 months before and this was a re-injury to that same shoulder. Prior to Jury selection, American Airlines and Schindler Elevator settled for $500,000.00 on July 7, 2007.
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.
Our client charged with Assault and Reckless Endangerment of a New York City Police Officer was acquitted of all charges in a jury trial.
On January 22, 2007, a Queens County Jury acquitted the Defendant, our client, of all charges of Assault and Reckless Endangerment. After the acquittal, his record was permanently sealed. The incident arose from a Traffic Incident where an off duty Police Officer claimed that the Defendant assaulted him by punching him in the face. Attorney Todd Greenberg argued that the credibility of the police Officer was at issue based on prior inconsistent statements and a forgetful memory. The Defendant testified that it was the Police Officer who acted aggressively and that the Defendant acted in self-defense. The Judge charged the jury regarding the law of self-defense and the Defendnat was thereafter acquitted of all charges.
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.
Todd Greenberg successfully convinces Queens jury to find his client Not Guilty of Domestic Violence Assault Charges
On Friday, July 21, 2006, a jury returned a not guilty verdict of all criminal charges against our client, who was accused of assaulting his wife by holding her arm on a burning stove for three minutes. The case was heard in the Domestic Violence Part of the Queens Criminal Court, Judge Harrington president with a jury. Defense attorney Todd Greenberg proffered that the parties, in the midst of a divorce, were quarrelling when the Defendant pushed his wife who accidentally stumbled on to the stove causing the burn injuries. The Prosecution argued that the burning was intentional and that our client actually held his wife's arm on the stove. We seriously questioned the credibility of the complaining witness and the jury stated after the verdict that the wittiness's credibility was, indeed, an issue.
Successful jury acquittal for our client charged with endangering the welfare of a child and sexual abuse in the second degree.
On February 10, 2006, our client was acquitted by a jury of endangering the welfare of a child and sexual abuse in the second degree. Our client's 16 year old niece alleged that the Defendant improperly touched her breast and vagina on two occasions while she was home alone with the Defendant. The evidence revealed that the allegations were made on the same date that the Complainant's other received a letter from Complainant's school that she was cutting class and being suspended. Defense attorney Todd Greenberg seriously questioned the Complainant's credibility for not coming forward with the allegations prior to that time and the jury found that her credibility was a serious issue. Additionally, the Complainant claimed that the trauma kept her out of school for 13 days during March, April and May of 2004. Attorney Greenberg subpoenaed records from John Adams High School and introduced into evidence that 9 of those 13 days occurred on a Friday. After deliberating for about two hours, the jury acquitted our client.
Jury acquits our client, a Queens Catholic School Administrator of Sex Charges.
Our client, a Queens Catholic School Administrator was charged with sexual abuse endangering the welfare of a child. Defense attorney Todd D. Greenberg was successful in raising sufficient credibility issues with the complainant and the jury acquitted our client of the charges.
Review a complete list of Verdicts and Outcomes
