Blog

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

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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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.