Blog

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.addabboandgreenberg.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.addabboandgreenberg.com

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.addabboandgreenberg.com if you find yourself in this most unfortunate circumstance.

July 11, 2014 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.

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)

By WILLIAM J. GORTA The Brooklyn man accused of mowing down a beloved yeshiva teacher faces up to 25 years in prison after a grand jury indicted him on aggravated vehicular homicide charges. Anel Kolenovic ran through a red light at Ocean Avenue and Avenue N while driving recklessly on Nov. 29, 2010, killing Moshe Berkowitz and injuring two other women, authorities charged. He was initially charged with criminally negligent homicide – a much less serious crime – but a grand jury returned a 16-count indictment, which included previously uncharged drunk-driving offenses. Spencer a. burnett Anel Kolenovic is arraigned on manslaughter charges in the second degree at Brooklyn Supreme Court. Kolenovic’s blood alcohol content was 0.02 percent in a test taken three hours after the crash. The legal limit for driving is .08. But, according to Todd Greenberg, Kolenovic’s lawyer, prosecutors are attempting to “reverse extrapolate” to figure out what his blood alcohol content was at the time of the crash. Greenberg said experts have called the method “dubious at best” and said the formula does not take into account differences in people’s metabolism. “They use an average,” he said. Greenberg said Kolenovic’s heart went out to the families of Berkowitz and the two injured women, but, “this is a tragic car accident.” Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Patricia DiMango ordered Kolenovic’s bail doubled to $400,000 abd told him to return to court on April 14.

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 21 st, 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.

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.

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.

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.