Case Results

People v. L.B. Our client was charged with Aggravated DWI for having an alleged 0.21 BAC. A non-criminal disposition was extremely important as the client was finishing her doctorate in physical therapy and a criminal conviction would likely have prevented her from becoming professionally licensed. After negotiations with prosecutors, including the bureau chief of the DWI unit, we were able to have the charge reduced to a non-criminal DWAI by discussing our client’s unique equities and problems with the People’s evidence.

People v. W. J. Police charged our client with an Aggravated DWI for having an alleged BAC of 0.18, Unlawful Possession of Marihuana, and Drinking Alcohol in a Motor Vehicle. Our client also had an extensive criminal history that included multiple felony convictions which including state prison. By exploring potential issues with the People’s case with the District Attorney, we were able to negotiate a reduction to DWAI, a traffic infraction, and Disorderly Conduct, a noncriminal offense. We also were able to convince the court to impose minimum fines for these offenses.

People v. K.S. Client was charged with Aggravated DWI for seating in a reclined driver seat with the engine running outside of the bar in which he was said to have been drinking. Despite an alleged BAC of 0.20, we were able to negotiate an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (meaning all charges would be dismissed 6 months afterwards should there be no new criminal charges) by convincing the prosecution that our client had no intention of driving as he had already ordered a taxi cab.

People vs. P.T. Client was involved in a minor accident where he became stuck in a ditch. When officers arrived they believed he was under the influence of alcohol. He was arrested and subsequently charged with DWI, DWI above .08 and Aggravated DWI above .18, all misdemeanors. Client blew a .18 at the police station which made him ineligible for a reduction to a DWAI according to the county policy. Upon viewing the evidence though, our attorneys noticed that a lot of the evidence was not consistent with someone that was accused of having a .18 BAC. Investigating further we realized our client was using chewing tobacco nearly until he blew into the breath test machine. We believe that when viewing this information in conjunction with the evidence from the scene our client may have been much lower than the .18 BAC alleged. We were able to discuss these factors with the ADA who listened and agreed that there were issues in the case. Our client was able to plead to one count of DWAI, as significant reduction from the Aggravated DWI he was originally charged with. This allowed him to avoid a criminal record and some of the more significant penalties that come along with a DWI.

People vs. B.M. In this case the client was charged with a DWI, DWI above .08, and Aggravated DWI above .18. The client was adamant that he had not been intoxicated as the officers and paperwork suggested. He didn’t deny that he might have been slightly impaired but would not plead to something he didn’t believe himself to be guilty of. We were working in a county were they would not reduce the case to a DWAI. Thus we prepared the case and the client to go to trial. The facts from the law enforcement allegations and paperwork were bad. However, after talking with several witnesses and preparing their testimony, we were able to draw a picture that our client felt much more accurately represented the night. Our client had been involved in an accident after an animal jumped in front of him. He hit another parked car and hit his head. We believe this caused a concussion which in turn caused our client to become disoriented an vomit. The disorientation accounted for his poor performance on the field sobriety tests and we believe the vomit may have altered the results in the breath test, contaminated his air with his stomach contents. During trial we had a jury who listened carefully to the case and concluded that there was reasonable doubt as to our client’s guilt on each of the DWI charges. They did convict our client of a DWAI, which he was more than willing to accept as he believe he was impaired. This result showed the hard work of our attorneys on a case with difficult facts. It also allowed our young client to avoid a criminal record and continue with his schooling and career goals.

People vs. J.J. In this case our client was put in unfortunate situation of having to deal with his friend who was being belligerent and fighting at a bar. The bartender told our client to get his friend out of there or he would be forced to call the police. Our client unfortunately made the poor decision of driving his friend away from the scene to diffuse the situation. Apparently the police had already been alerted to the fight and stopped our client’s car. Our client was arrested for Aggravated DWI (alleged BAC .18) and common law DWI, both misdemeanors. The policy of this particular DA’s office is not to reduce Aggravated DWIs to non criminal violations. However we were able to explain that while it was not the best choice, our client was trying to diffuse a volatile situation. Our team negotiated with the prosecutor and showed that while the policy may not warrant a reduction the facts of this case did. Our team was able to secure an exceptional offer of the non criminal violation of DWAI in full satisfaction of all the charges. This allowed our client to accept responsibility but took into account the fact that he was trying to help his friend and other patrons avoid a violent situation at the bar. Taking all the factors into account our team was able to secure a plea that was outside of the prosecutors policy and may not have happened without the team’s diligent work.

People vs. T.H. In this case we had a client who had potential career ramifications based on her being charged with an Aggravated DWI (alleged .20 BAC), common law DWI and speeding. The DA’s office was sympathetic to our client’s concerns but could not reduce such a high BAC to a non criminal DWAI during several negotiation sessions. Ultimately because of the client’s career we prepared and went to hearings on the matter to challenge the probable cause for her arrest. At the hearing our team was able to poke serious holes in the case and demonstrate to the Court and the ADA that the officer had failed in several aspects of administering the field sobriety tests. As such, we were able to re-conference the case with the ADA. She acknowledged that she had issues in her case because of the hearings and offered a DWAI in full satisfaction of all the charges. This allowed our client to avoid a criminal conviction and to continue on her career path. Without the efforts of our team on this case the results could have been much different for our client and the consequences could have continued to haunt her indefinitely.

People vs. J.B. In this case, we had a client with a government job that required him to drive for work. The client was charged with an Aggravated DWI and common law DWI, both of which are misdemeanors and require the Ignition Interlock Device (IID) if someone is found guilty. Our client could not accept a plea that required the IID, as his job would fire him with that condition. Our client had a previous DWAI conviction, so the initial offer was to plead guilty to DWI as a misdemeanor. The attorney has a particularly good relationship with DA’s office in the county where our client was charged. He had our client’s boss write a letter to the DA and made a strong pitch for a further reduction based on our client’s career. Mr. Viscosi was able to secure a plea of guilty to one count of DWAI, a violation. This allowed our client to avoid a criminal record, avoid the IID requirement, and ultimately to keep his job.

People vs. J.M.In this case, our client was charged with three misdemeanor counts of DWI, including aggravated DWI as it was alleged that he blew a .20. He had prior alcohol convictions from 1996 and 1999. We were able to secure a great offer for our client by demonstrating that there were issues with proof of operation. Our client was found sleeping in the drivers seat of the vehicle but the only person who allegedly saw him driving was a civilian. There were issues with the civilian’s allegations and we were able to convince the ADA that this warranted a reduction to the traffic infraction of DWAI. This allowed our client to avoid excessive fines, the Ignition Interlock device, and most importantly a criminal conviction.

People vs. D.W. In this case, the above client was charged in Onondaga County with DWI and Aggravated Unlicensed Operation in the 3rd degree, both misdemeanors. Through our review of the case documents and conversations with our client Derek Wild was able to negotiate a disposition that will result in no record, fines or license suspension. The client’s case was adjourned in contemplation of dismissal. This means that if she does not get in any further criminal trouble for a period of time, the entire case against her will be dismissed.

People vs. M.Y. Client was charged with Aggravated DWI, DWI common law, DWI per se, Improper or Unsafe Turn without Signal, Failure to Keep Right. Even though it was alleged that our client was above a .20 BAC and nearly ran another car off the road we were still able to negotiate a favorable disposition. The client was a medical student in a highly competitive program. By being creative and using our client’s positive attributes we were able to get the charge reduced to a DWAI and Failure to Keep Right in full satisfaction. This allowed him to continue to move forward with his career dreams and avoid a criminal conviction.

People vs. J.B. In this case the client was charged with DWI and Aggravated DWI, both misdemeanors, as well as two traffic infractions. The client’s BAC was alleged to be a .21. The initial offer was for our client to plead to a misdemeanor DWI with maximum fines and the ignition interlock device. We continued negotiating on our client’s behalf. We were finally able to secure a plea deal that allowed our client to plea to the non criminal offense of DWAI in full satisfaction of all the charges. This plea deal did not mandate the ignition interlock and allowed our client to avoid a criminal conviction.

People vs. A.G. Our client faced 14 charges including two Aggravated DWIs. If convicted, he would have lost his license for at least one year and possibly served jail time. Through vigorous negotiations with the Assistant District Attorney, we were able to negotiate a plea agreement that reduced our client’s penalty to a six month revocation of his license.

People vs. R.L. Our client was charged with several offenses including Aggravated DWI. If convicted, he faced a mandatory penalty of over $1000 in fines and at least one year revocation of his license. However, we were able to negotiate a plea to a reduced DWAI charge and limited the impact on our client’s driver license to a 90 day suspension.

People vs. A.S. Our client was involved in a single car accident. An officer who was driving near by actually witnessed the accident. The client was ultimately arrested and charged with DWI; DWI above .08; and Aggravated DWI above .18; along with other traffic infractions. The only way our client could continue to work as he needed was to avoid the Ignition Interlock requirement, as such we needed a reduction to the traffic infraction of DWAI from the 3 DWI misdemeanors he was charged with. We started negotiations immediately and sent a letter of equities on our client’s behalf. Through this we were able to show that the client was in treatment, provided a safe facility for ask risk citizens in his community, and had started volunteering to help raise awareness about the risks of DWI. The ADA was able to justify a significant reduction based on our representations and negotiations. Our client was able to secure a DWAI plea which allowed him to avoid a misdemeanor conviction, and the ignition interlock requirements which allows him to keep work as he needs to.

People v. S.B. Our client, a commercial driver with a CDL license, was parked by the side of the road in his truck. He had a passenger that was also a commercial driver who was about to take over driving. Our client had a beer in his hand that he was drinking with his lunch. Despite this explanation, and the testimony of the other driver, officers who arrived on the scene ran our client through field sobriety tests and charged him with DWI in a Commercial Vehicle. This would have cost our client his employment, heavy fines and state surcharges, possible jail time, and would resulted in the loss of his CDL for at least one year.

Our attorneys prepared pre-trial hearings and held a conference with the judge and prosecutor. After Nave DWI Defense Attorneys attorneys described our client’s case and our potential arguments at trial, the prosecution resolved the case by offering our client a single count of “Parked on Pavement,” a no-point traffic ticket. Our client kept his job, his license, his CDL, and the money he would have had to pay in fines and surcharges.

People v. D.H. Our client holds a Commercial Driver’s License (“CDL”) and drives a truck for a shipping company. After drinking some beers he was involved in a property damage accident and blew a .15 after consenting to a Breathalyzer test. He was ticketed with 2 counts DWI, Speed Not Reasonable/Prudent, and Refusal to Take Breath Test. Any alcohol related conviction would result in a one year loss of his CDL and loss of his employment. After our attorneys submitted equities to the ADA handling the case, our client was allowed to enter a plea to one count of Reckless Driving, along with 90 days SCRAM, and a $2,000 dollar donation to the Wounded Warrior Project. Our client was thrilled he was able to keep his job. He called yesterday to thank us for allowing him to keep his career and provide for his family. He had no problem with the donation since his son is currently a United States Marine

People v. J.H. It was alleged our client had a BAC of 0.21 and was involved in a bad motor vehicle accident. He also had a CDL which he needed for his job. Any type of alcohol related conviction would have caused him to lose his CDL for at least 1 year and, as a consequence, his job. After a pre-trial hearing in which the weakness of the prosecution’s case was explored, the District Attorney offered a reduction to a non-alcohol charge of Reckless Driving that allowed our client to keep his CDL and his job.

People vs. C.S This client was charged with a DWI for the third time, having two prior alcohol convictions in the past. His case was particularly important because the client had a CDL and he would be subject to a mandatory revocation of his Commercial Driving privileges (no conditional privileges on commercial operation) with any alcohol conviction. We were able to negotiate a non alcohol related office. The client plead to one count of Reckless Driving. The client was able to keep his CDL and by doing so he was able to also keep his job.

People vs. C.S.Our client was charged with DWI. Because our client relied on his commercial driver license (CDL) every day for work, it was critical that we avoid revocation of his CDL. We worked with the assistant district attorney on the case to negotiate a plea to the reduced charge of reckless driving. This plea resulted in one year of probation and a small fine. However, our client maintained his CDL and his job.

People vs. B.K.Our client was charged with DWI and Reckless Driving, both misdemeanors. He was also charged with failure to keep right, speed not reasonable and prudent, unlicensed operation, no seat belt and refusal to take a breath test. The client possesses a CDL and thus would be unable to work if he were to lose his license due to an alcohol related conviction. Through negotiations and legal arguments, we were able to convince the DA’s office to offer a non alcohol related plea deal. Our client was able to plead to Reckless driving and a parking ticket. This result allowed our client to keep his license and his job.

People vs. S.D. This case our client was charged with two misdemeanor counts of driving while intoxicated, allegedly blowing above a .08 on the breathalyzer. We were first able to keep our client’s Commercial Driver’s license at arraignment, this allowed him to avoid the mandatory suspension while the case was pending. Our client has a CDL and drives for a living so we needed to make sure that he was able to keep his job and business which requires him to have his license. The original offer was a DWAI but that reduction did not help our client as it would result in him having his license suspended and not being able to drive commercial vehicles. We filed motions and appeared for a hearing. At the hearing we watched the video with the ADA and pointed out the legal issues with the stop and subsequent arrest. The ADA offered an out of policy plea to Reckless Driving. Our client was able to plea to this charge without losing his license. This result was not only outside of this particular DA’s office policy, it also allowed our client to keep his job and avoid any conviction related to alcohol. If our client had plead to any alcohol related job his CDL would have automatically been revoked for a minimum of one year, because of our efforts he never missed a day of driving.

People v. K.R. Our client was driving home on snow-covered roads when she lost control of her vehicle and slid off the road, striking a snowbank. As a result of the accident she was knocked unconscious. Deputies arrived on the scene and awakened her so that they could conduct a DWI investigation. Despite having been in an accident our client was compelled to perform field sobriety tests and then refused the breathalyzer. She was charged with DWI, Refusal, and several other violations.

Our attorneys pointed out to the prosecution that our client should have been provided medical assistance and not forced to take part in a DWI arrest against herself. The prosecution reduced all charges to a single traffic infraction and our client paid a fine and surcharge. Due to the work of Nave DWI Defense Attorneys attorneys, the refusal our client was charged with was also dismissed, and the potential loss of her driver’s license for one year was averted.

People v. W.M. Our client was a Veteran of several combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. While protecting our freedom, our client was wounded on the field of battle by an exploding IED. The explosion inflicted severe injuries on our client, including a TBI, PTSD, and injuries to his left leg that forced the amputation of that limb at the knee.

On the night of his arrest our client turned the wrong way down a one-way street in an area he was not familiar with. He was pulled over by police who initiated a DWI investigation. Despite the fact that our client had an artificial limb, he was put through filed sobriety tests like the “Walk and Turn” and “One Leg Stand.” He was arrested for DWI and several other violations. He refused to take any breath test, and was charged with a Refusal as well.

In this case our attorney team would not accept any initial offer and pushed the matter to trial. After the strengths of our client’s case were argued to the prosecution and to the Court, our client was able to resolve his case by pleading to one traffic ticket for driving the wrong way on a one-way street. Our attorneys also attended and won the Refusal Hearing. Our client’s license was protected, and he paid a small fine and surcharge.

People vs. A.B. In this case our client was charged with DWI and failing to yield to an emergency vehicle. The client refused to submit to a breath test which meant that it was outside of the county’s policy to offer any reduction on the case. However, we were able to show the ADA that there were issues with the case and that our client had no criminal history. We were able to show the ADA through an alcohol evaluation that the client did not constitute an ongoing threat to society. Therefore we made the argument that our client deserved a deviation from their policy. We were also able to keep the client’s license intact during the pendency of the case by conferring with the officers and getting them to agree to an adjournment of the refusal hearing. As such, we were able to keep our client’s ability to driver for work and other necessities throughout the entire process. This case demonstrates our ability to get an equitable result for our client even when it is outside of a particular county’s policy. The client was happy to accept some responsibility for her actions, without the devastating results that could have come from a simple plea to the charge.

People vs. R.P. Client charged with DWI-Refusal and had a prior. Charged in a county that does not reduce refusals OR with someone having a prior DWAI conviction. After going to hearings we were able to convince the ADA if this case was to go to trial they would not get a DWI conviction, they agreed and offered a non-criminal offense without having to go to trial.

People vs. K.M. Our client was charged with several offenses including DWI and Refusal. Because we were able to expose factual errors in the arresting officer’s testimony, the case was dismissed and our client’s commercial driver license was unaffected.

People vs. R.R. Our client was accused of being in a hit and run accident which he denied. The police ultimately ticketed him with leaving the scene of a property damage accident and a DWI. The police alleged that he fled and was ultimately apprehended at a local grocery story. The officers said that they smelled alcohol on our client and that he had impaired speech and motor coordination. During our work on the case we were able to establish issues with the allegation that our client even operated the vehicle. As such we were able to win the refusal hearing and build some testimony for our argument to the DA. We were unable to get an acceptable offer through negotiations therefore we pushed for the case to head to hearings. When we arrived at the probable cause hearing we were able to point out the issues with the case to the DA. Ultimately the DA agreed with our assessment and offered our client a nonmoving parking ticket which carried with it a minimum fines and no effect on our client’s driver’s license and all the criminal charges included the DWI were dismissed.

People vs. R.K. Our client was charged with several offenses including DWI and Refusal. She also happened to live in an area of New York with very strict policies on the application of penalties. Nevertheless, we negotiated a plea to a single lesser charge of DWAI. Our client did not serve any jail time and retained her license.

People vs. D.K. Our client was charged with several offenses including DWI and Refusal. We were able to cast doubt on the field sobriety tests used against her, and she was acquitted.

People vs. K.D. Our client was charged with DWI and Refusal after being involved in a single car accident. We were able to expose weaknesses in the arresting officer’s testimony, and the case was dismissed.

People v. S.I. Client was arrested after an off-duty police officer observed what he believed to be signs of intoxication. Our client had faced DWI charges before in his past, and the prosecution was unwilling to offer anything but 1-3 years in State Prison. Our attorneys reviewed the video tape showing the arrest and the evidence that supported that arrest. A number of weaknesses and inconsistencies were discovered, and our attorneys used these factors to convince the prosecution to offer a sentence of straight probation. Our client did not serve one day in jail and was able to continue his employment, although the first offer from the prosecution would have had him spending months, if not years, in state prison.

People v. R.B. Our client was changing a tire well off the roadside when approached by police. The police initiated a DWI investigation although our client was not alone and it was not clear who had been driving the vehicle. Our client failed the field sobriety tests and a breathalyzer revealed a BAC of .08. Our client was charged with 2 counts of felony DWI and other offenses as well. Our trial team took this case to trial and, after a 3 day jury trial, our client was found not guilty of all offenses. Our client was a decorated Veteran wounded in battle in Somalia, and after finding him not guilty, the jury came over and shook our client’s hand. Our client was spared an unwarranted felony conviction, his license was restored, and he avoided jail or prison, thanks to the hard work of the Nave DWI Defense Attorneys trial team.

People v. A.C. Our client charged with an E Felony DWI, speed and moving from lane unsafely at 2:11 a.m. Nave DWI Defense Attorneys took over this case after another attorney had it and was recommending that the client take a plea to the felony and spend 1 to 3 years in State Prison. Our client didn’t want to do any state time or plead to a felony because he works for his family business and it would have created a huge hardship for him to be away for any extended period of time. With the only option being to go to trial, our attorneys tried the case, and at the end of the trial, told the jury that there simply wasn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt that our client was guilty. The jury agreed, and found our client guilty of the traffic offense of DWAI. This victory at trial means this Nave DWI Defense Attorneys client avoids state prison, a felony, Probation, and can keep working and supporting his family.

People v. C.D. Sometimes our reputation as trial attorneys is enough to achieve the desired result. In this case our client charged with a felony DWI and speeding. Our client was undergoing treatment for leukemia at the time. The original offer was a 5 days in jail and 5 years’ Probation. Our client had a limited criminal history and did not want a felony or Probation. We conducted Hearings and weakened the prosecution’s case. After the Hearing the offer was either the above offer or 60 days in jail with 3 year Probation on a misdemeanor. We rejected those offers and the trial was scheduled. When the trial was scheduled we were offered a misdemeanor 3 years’ Probation and no jail. We rejected that offer. We were then offered a misdemeanor with no jail or Probation and minimum fines. Our client accepted this offer, as that is what the client had hoped for all along.

People v. M.R. Our client is an Army Officer and a combat Veteran. He had a prior arrest in 2011. He was stopped when the police received a report of an erratic driver (the report had a license plate number). He was arrested for a number of offenses including felony DWI, felony Aggravated DWI, and felony Aggravated Unlicensed Operation. The Army was seeking to discharge him based on these charges. After extensive negotiation and presentation of equities, our client pled to a misdemeanor DWI with a fine and preserved his Army career.

People v. C.E. Our client was alleged to have crossed into the oncoming lane of traffic striking another vehicle and causing it to flip. The driver of the other vehicle was killed in the accident. A blood test shortly after the accident indicated our client had a 0.18 BAC and tested positive for both cocaine and marihuana. Among other offenses, she was charged with Manslaughter in the 2nd Degree and Criminally Negligent Homicide. The maximum period of incarceration for her original charges was 8 1/3 to 25 years in state prison.

People v. J.M. Client was arrested for DWI with an alleged BAC of 0.12. Because of a number of suspensions and revocations of his driver’s license, he was also charged with a felony count of Aggravated Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle (AUO). During a conference with the District Attorney, we explained there had been no erratic driving or accident, his BAC was relatively low, it was his first alcohol related offense, and there were issues of proof with regard to the felony AUO charge. As a result, the felony AUO charge was dismissed and the client was allowed to plead guilty to a simple DWI without jail or probation.

People v. E.B. Client was alleged to have had a BAC of .17 and had a prior DWAI from 2011. After discussing issues of operation (i.e. client was in a parked car), the prosecution offered a reduction to Disorderly Conduct, a parking ticket, and an open container. None of the reduced charges were criminal offenses.

People v. J.R. Our client was charged with a class “E” felony DWI in which the presiding judge wanted to sentence him to the maximum period of incarceration allowed by law – 4 years in prison. Our experienced DWI attorneys were able to use their extensive knowledge of DWI defense to obtain an acquittal at trial.

We were able to have 4 of the original charges against her dismissed after motion practice. After a jury trial, our client was found not guilty of all remaining felony charges and of Driving While Ability Impaired by the use of alcohol and drugs. She was only found guilty of misdemeanor Aggravated DWI, misdemeanor Reckless Driving, and a simple traffic infraction.

People vs. J.M This is a case that had to go to trial as our client was charged with a felony DWI and could not continue in his career if he had a felony. The client was found walking about one mile away from his vehicle by law enforcement. He told the officers that he pulled his vehicle off the road when he ran out of gas and that he had drank since that time. The officers believed his version of the events but thought that he was likely intoxicated while he was driving before running out of gas. Our client had a bad history of DWI so the DAs office was unwilling to offer a reduction as they believed he had already had enough chances. Our client was an admitted alcoholic who was still struggling with his addiction at the time of the incident. He has since received the treatment he needed and explained to our attorneys that he had not drank until he had run out of gas. He drank the beer that he had while hoping that a car would pass by and offer him a ride home. That did not happen and he started walking towards his residence. When the police arrived they had him do field sobriety testing and arrested him based on his failure. He blew a .17 BAC at the station. There was a lack of communication between the officers and our client, thus they never asked him if he had drank before he drove. At the trial we were able to convince the jury that while our client was an alcoholic and probably made a bad decision by drinking in the car after running out of gas, that he had not drank until he ran out of gas. Thus he was found not guilty of all the charges alleging that he was driving while intoxicated. This result allowed my client to keep his job and continue supporting his family. It also helped my client realize the damaging effects that alcohol was having on his life and family. Even though our client was not guilty of the charges, he took the situation seriously and got the treatment he needed.

People vs. C.L. In this case our client made the very poor decision of drinking while he was driving with his teenaged son. When he went through a toll booth on the New York State Thruway, a trooper say our client drinking from a beer can. The trooper stopped our client and charged him with two felony counts of DWI because he had a person less than 17 years old in the car with him and an alleged BAC of .11. It is the policy of the DA in this particular county to not reduce these types of felonies. However, we were able to persuade the DA that it was an appropriate case to deviate from the said policy as this was our client’s first arrest and his actions where completely outside of his typically upstanding character. We were able to get a reduction to a misdemeanor DWI plea, thus allowing our client to avoid being labeled as a felon for the rest of his life but still allowing him to be accountable for his actions that day. The efforts of our team in this case allowed our client to continue living his life and working in his chosen field but also kept him accountable for his actions.

People vs. A.W. In this case our client was charged with a Felony DWI. She was pulled over for having no registration and insurance at the time of the stop. When she was taken back to the station, she was given a breathalyzer which indicated a BAC of .12. Originally the DA’s office made an offer of six months in jail and five years probation on a felony plea. We were able to get letters of recommendation on our client’s behalf and we went with our client to meet with probation prior to them giving a recommendation to the court and DA’s office. When we met with probation we stressed all of the positives about our client, ultimately probation recommended that our client be allowed to plea to a misdemeanor with fines, a surcharge and the ignition interlock device. Rather than accepting the first offer, we were able to push and help out client get a deal that allowed her to avoid a felony, avoid jail, and avoid probation supervision. Without our team pushing and fighting for our client, the consequences would have been significantly worse.

People vs. C.G. This was a client who had three prior DWI and DWAI convictions. He was stopped for having insufficient taillights and for failing to keep right. When he was stopped he failed all five field sobriety tests, stated that he had been drinking prior to driving and was ultimately alleged to have a BAC of .12. He was charged with two felony counts of DWI. While we were fighting the case, the District Attorney’s Office made an offer of an “E” felony disposition with one year in jail and $1500 in fines and surcharges, plus a one year license revocation and interlock requirement. We rejected that offer. Ultimately we made a motion to dismiss the case based on some technical deficiencies in how the case and evidence was handled. The motion was granted and all charges were dismissed against our client, allowing him to avoid another conviction and any potential penalties in this case.

People vs. W.L. This client came to us, charged with a felony DWI. He was in a position that if he plead to the felony, which was the original offer, he would lose his career. He had been previously convicted of a DWAI and a misdemeanor DWI within the previous 10 years. In this case he was charged with having driven with a BAC of .19, which is considered an aggravated DWI in NY. We made motions on the case and were set for hearings on the issues of the stop and probable cause for arrest. We made one final pitch to the prosecutor and judge. Our client fully admitted that he was an alcoholic and needed help with his addiction. We proposed that our client be allowed to plead into the county’s drug court program. If he was able to remain sober and comply with the directives of the drug court program, he would be allowed to plea to a misdemeanor DWI with a term of probation to follow. The judge and the prosecutor agreed that this would serve both the community and our client’s interests. Our client plead into drug court and upon successful completion he will be able to avoid a felony conviction and maintain his career all while getting the help he needs with his addiction.

People vs. J.B. Client was charged with three felony counts of DWI, including one count of Aggravated Driving while intoxicated. Client was alleged to have driven and provided a breath sample that registered as a .19, more than twice the legal limit. Our client had been convicted of a DWI within the previous 10 years which elevated the current charges to felonies punishable but up to four years in state prison. After extensive negotiations with the DA’s office and pretrial hearings we were unable to come up with a resolution that was acceptable to our client. Our client, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, could not plead to a felony and continue on the career path that he had chosen. Our trial team prepared and went to trial with the case arguing that our client was not in fact driving at the time that the government alleged. After a four day trial, our client was found not guilty of all charges by the jury. This result allows our client to avoid any criminal conviction and means that he does not need to serve any term of incarceration or probation.

People vs. S.T. Our client was charged with two counts of misdemeanor DWI. The client had a very bad history with DWI arrest, having been previously convicted on at least 5 alcohol related arrests for Driving while intoxicated. He had previously been convicted of at least one felony DWI. Due to the fact that there were issues with the stop of our clients vehicle and that we had pushed for hearings, the ADA ultimately offered our client a plea to the DWAI. This non criminal offense saved our client on the amount of fines he had to pay, did not require him to install the Ignition interlock device, and saved him from a further criminal record.

People vs. C.S. Client was indicted on two counts of Felony Aggravated DWI, child in vehicle; one misdemeanor count of endangering the welfare of a child, and a speeding violation. Punishments for the two felonies carried a maximum penalty of 1 and 1/3 – 4 years in State prison. Due to a no plea deal policy of the DA’s office, our team of attorneys were forced to prepare for and go to trial on this case. Through thorough evaluation of the case and preparation by our trial team, we were able to expose weaknesses in the case. This resulted in our client being found not guilty of the two felony charges and the one misdemeanor charge. The client was convicted of a DWAI and a speed violation. He was sentenced to fines and a one year conditional discharge after trial.

People vs. J.J. Our client was charged with his fourth DWI in ten years and felony aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle. These charges could have resulted in significant jail time, making it impossible for this Gulf War veteran to continue working at his job or continue to enjoy his weekend visitation with his two children. However, we worked with our client’s probation officer to reduce his jail time to 10 days and to fulfill the balance of his sentence by wearing a SCRAM bracelet.

People v. D.S. Our client was stopped for speeding and was charged with numerous violations, the most serious of which were DWI and Driving with BAC Greater than .08. Among other factors the prosecution had in building their case was a breath test of .13 and our client’s failure on all standardized field sobriety tests. The case was made more complex as our client is a flight attendant, and even a reduced charge would have cost him his job of nearly 25 years. Our attorneys were able to argue this and other equities, and the prosecution agreed to dismiss the entire docket against our client, who now has no criminal record and who was able to maintain his employment.

People v. S.T. Our client, who just completed his Master’s Degree and hoped to be a teacher, was stopped for speeding nearly 30 miles per hour over the speed limit. The police discovered our client was driving on a suspended license for unpaid tickets in other courts. The client failed all field sobriety tests, and his .18 breath test resulted in his being charged with Aggravated DWI, three other misdemeanor offenses, and several traffic tickets. Our client feared he would never be able to teach, and that his one mistake would cancel years of higher education and hard work.

Nave DWI Defense Attorneys attorneys took the client’s case to pre-trial hearings, and after the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case were revealed at those hearings, our client was offered a non-criminal disposition that ensured our client would not have a criminal record and would be able to pursue his goal of teaching.

People v. B.F. Our client took a wrong turn and ended up driving the wiring was on a one-way street. Almost immediately our client was involved in a head-on collision. Fortunately no one was injured. Our client admitted to having 2 drinks, and this was verified by a .05 breath test. Despite this low test, our client was charged with 2 counts of misdemeanor DWI. Our attorneys attacked the legality of these charges and the facts that the police and prosecution relied upon in making these charges. Nave DWI Defense Attorneys attorneys also showed that all insurance had been paid. Facing a trial with our trial team, the prosecution offered a 3 point traffic ticket. Our client paid a fine and surcharge and did not lose his license for even a single day.

People v. M.L. Client was stopped for a supposed “inadequate headlight.” Client did well on field sobriety tests. A breathalyzer test showed a .07 BAC. Our trial team rejected the offer of DWAI and set the matter for trial. The officer did not show up for the trial and it was rescheduled over our objections. When the officer failed to show up the second time, our attorneys moved to have the case dismissed, and the judge agreed. All charges were dismissed and our client did not lose his license for even 1 day.

People v. J.W. Our client was pulled over and parked in a Thruway rest stop to send text messages when a Trooper knocked on his window and told him to exit the vehicle. Our client was told there had been a 911 call of “erratic driving” by a vehicle matching the description of the truck our client was driving. This report was made nearly 30 miles away from where our client was approached. Our client was compelled to take filed sobriety tests. He was told he failed these. He was also given a breathalyzer that yielded a .10 result. He was then arrested for DWI.

Nave DWI Defense Attorneys attorneys rejected the offer of DWAI, or Driving While Ability Impaired. Our trial team prepared and argued motions, maintaining that the “stop” of our client was not supported by sufficient evidence. The Judge agreed and the case against our client was dismissed in its entirety. Our client’s license was fully restored that same day.

People v. L.W. After a suppression hearing during which our experienced DWI attorney explored weaknesses in the District Attorney’s case, the prosecution offered to reduce our client’s charge of misdemeanor DWI to a simple non-alcohol traffic infraction. Our client had a prior DWI conviction and was alleged to have refused a chemical breath test after having been stopped a road block.

People vs. T.B. In this case we had the unique circumstance of having a client who was charged with two misdemeanor DWI’s, allegedly with a BAC .12, who was not guilty of any crime. Client had gone to a house party and intended to call a cab when he left. However his cell phone was dead when he got back to his car so he chose to simply sleep in his car until the morning. At that point he could walk home. While he was sleeping he turned on the engine of the car simply to stay warm. During that time though the cops approached the vehicle and charged him with DWI. The case was exceptionally important to our client because he has a CDL and drives for a living. We were able to get letters from witnesses as to what happened with the client and the fact that the car had never moved after the client left the house party. We were able to provide these to the prosecutor and secure an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. As long as our client is not arrested in the next six months the charges against him will be dismissed in their entirety. In this case it was important for the client to have a team that worked hard to clear an innocent driver from potentially devastating results of his arrest.

People vs. J.G. In this case, our client was charged with three misdemeanor counts of driving while intoxicated – the 1192.3, 1192.2 and 1192.2(a), allegedly blowing a .19 on the breathalyzer and was also issued a three-point traffic offense. We were able to keep our client’s license through arraignment, this allowed her to avoid the mandatory suspension while the case was pending. Our client works as a supervisor at a facility for individuals with disabilities. Given her responsibilities as a supervisor, any criminal conviction would result in an immediate loss of her job. Additionally, a plea to a misdemeanor would mean that our client would have a criminal conviction for life. We approached the Assistant District Attorney with issues we believe existed in our client’s case and appeared for a probable cause hearing. At the hearing, the ADA offered an out of policy plea to a DWAI- a traffic infraction. Our client was able to plea to this charge and keep her job while also avoiding a criminal conviction. This deal took intense negotiations and a willingness to litigate the case, without either of these to things our client likely would have ended the case with a much different result.

People vs. D.M. In this case, our client was charged with DWI as a misdemeanor, refusal to take a preliminary breath test, and a traffic infraction. Our client was also alleged to have refused to take the breathalyzer. The case carried with it potential consequences that reached far beyond a misdemeanor conviction, given that our client was a licensed professional who needs to be in good standing to practices his given profession. As such, our client knew that he needed to fight the case all the way through trial if necessary. We were first able to win the refusal hearing and allow the client to keep his license while the case was pending. After that we proceeded towards trial because the only offer we were able to procure was an alcohol related offense. On the day of two members of our trial team, Kevin O’Brien and Michael Viscosi, were prepared and ready to litigate the case. Given the result and transcript from the refusal hearing, the ADA made a new offer immediately prior to the commencement of the trial. This new offer of a parking ticket and a 2 point violation of the vehicle and traffic law allowed our client to avoid any potential consequences to his professional license, to keep his New York State driving privileges, and avoid any alcohol related conviction.

People vs. D.B. Our client was charged with one count of misdemeanor DWI, having refused to supply a breath sample when arrested. He was alleged to have hit a telephone pole and then driven away with damage to the front of his truck. The offer by the DA’s office was that our client plead guilty as charged. The prosecutor stated that our client did not deserve a reduction as he had previously been convicted of DWAI, DWI and then during this incident was involved in an accident and refused the breath machine. We suggested that our client undergo treatment, given his obvious issues with alcohol and driving, and that if we were able to successfully participate in real treatment he be offered a reduction to a DWAI. The prosecutor appreciated that we were taking the issue seriously and seeking ways to correct the behavior and gave us the offer of a DWAI based on participation in sanctioned treatment.

People vs. R.O. Our client was charged with three misdemeanor counts of DWI, including an allegation that he was driving with above a .18 bac. This case was particularly challenging because he had three prior alcohol convictions. The original offer was a plea with the potential for incarceration. We wrote a letter to the judge before pleading our client to that offer. We outlined the type of person our client is and how he didn’t deserve, nor could he afford to be incarcerated. The judge ultimately took our position and allowed our client to plead to a DWI but committed to no incarceration. This disposition holds our client responsible for his actions but allows our client to keep his job and continue being a productive member or society. Without taking the extra actions that we did on our client’s behalf this situation could have turned out significantly worse for him and his family.

People vs. M.D. Our client was charged with a DWI and failure to stop at a stop sign. The prosecutor could not offer a reduction to our client based on the county policy of not reducing charges of anyone alleged to have refused the breath test. However, our client was adamant that he was not guilty of DWI and insisted that he would not plead guilty to anything other than Driving while Ability Impaired (DWAI), a traffic infraction. Kevin O’Brien, a member of our trial team handled a probable cause hearing, where we were able to elicit valuable testimony that was favorable to our client. Mr. O’Brien was then able to use this testimony at the subsequent trial of our client. At the trial our client was found not guilty of DWI, a misdemeanor. He was convicted of DWAI and failing to stop at a stop sign, both traffic infractions. This allowed our client to maintain a clean criminal history and avoid having to install an Ignition Interlock Device on any vehicle that he owned or operated.

People vs. N.H. In this case, our client was charged with the misdemeanor charge of DWAI Drugs. She was alleged to have driven down a one way street the wrong way. Her BAC was relatively low and Hydrocodone was found in her system. We were able to show the ADA that she did not have a history of drug abuse nor was she a continuous offender. Our client had significant medical issues which made it necessary to take narcotics for pain. Even though her prescription itself was not a legal defense to the charge, it did sway the prosecutor to offer her a plea outside of the alcohol and drug category. She plead guilty to disorderly conduct and a parking ticket. This plea allowed her to avoid any criminal record and any charge associated with drugs or alcohol.

People vs. L.C. Our client was charged with two misdemeanor counts of DWI. She was traveling with some friends to an event and was pulled over by the New York State police. There were significant facts alleged that our client and her passengers disputed. While she was arrested and her breath test was above the legal limit, we were able to show the assistant district attorney that there were significant legal issues with the stop and subsequent arrest of our client. As a result of our relationship with the DA’s office and persistent negotiation on our client’s behalf we were able to secure a plea bargain that was not a crime or associated with the consumption of alcohol. Our client plead guilty to the non criminal offense of disorderly conduct in satisfaction of all the charges pending against her.

People vs. T.S. Client was arrested and charged with two misdemeanor counts of DWI. He was in an substantial accident and ended up blowing a .16 on the breath machine. Given the bad accident and the relatively high blood alcohol content the DA’s office was originally unable to offer our client a plea that would not result in a criminal conviction. After looking further at the case and breaking down the police paperwork we were able to determine that there were some legal issues in the case. We made our pitch to the ADA and were able to get our client a plea deal, the deal included one count of DWAI. This allowed out client to avoid the interlock device, potential probation and a criminal conviction.

People vs. S.W. This client was charged with two counts of misdemeanor DWI as well as driving across the hazard markings. After evaluating the case, we were able to use an expert to persuade the DA’s office to offer and adjournment in contemplation of dismissal on the DWI charges. The expert was able to show that it was likely that our client was below the legal limit when she was operating her vehicle. By employing this tactic the client avoided any alcohol conviction and as a result did not have her license suspended due to a conviction.

People vs. A.W. This client is employed as a teacher. He was charged with two counts of misdemeanor DWI after being stopped at a roadblock. Due to the fact that he had previously been convicted of DWAI within the previous five years, the initial offer from the DA’s office was a plea to one count of misdemeanor DWI. A misdemeanor could have had a devastating impact on our client’s ability to teach. As such we were able to attack the constitutionality of the road block and secure a plea arrangement that allowed him to plea to another DWAI, which is a non criminal offense. This result will have much less of an impact on our client’s ability to continue on his current career path.

People v. C.W. Our client was arrested for DWI, Leaving the Scene of a Personal Injury Accident, and Failed to Keep Right. It was unclear if our client or his friend was driving. Our client was very concerned as he is in the process of becoming a Corrections Officer and a DWI conviction would make that difficult, if not impossible. Our attorneys discovered our client was in possession of valuable information that could assist the DA’s Office in felony prosecutions. In exchange for our client’s cooperation with all testimony at Grand Jury the DA’s Office dismissed the case in the interests of justice. Our client was left with no criminal record and his career plan of becoming a Corrections Officer intact.

People v. A.R. Client was arrested for DWI after he swerved to avoid an animal in the road and his car went into a ditch. Police arrived and put him through FSTs and gave him a breathalyzer. After blowing a .00, he consented to a blood draw. Client had a prescription he was taking as prescribed. However, client had an extensive criminal history and the arresting officer told our client that even prescription drugs were covered by DWI. Our attorneys pointed out the legal problems with eth police work and conclusions. Although our client was on Parole for other charges, the DA agreed with our attorneys allowed our client to plead guilty to one Moved from Lane Unsafely traffic ticket in full satisfaction.

People v. J.T. Our client is an air traffic controller for the Army and holds a security clearance. He was snowmobiling the night of his arrest and was stopped on his way home for operating a snowmobile after midnight. He was arrested and taken to the station where he blew a .23. Our attorneys explained that our client would lose his job/career with a misdemeanor conviction. By presenting legal proof regarding the BAC and equities tied to his career, we were able to obtain an SWAI (no criminal) result, protect our client’s job, and have the record of his conviction sealed.

People v. G.H. Our client is a combat veteran currently serving in the Army who has been diagnosed with severe PTSD. Our client was approached by Troopers after he pulled over to rest. He submitted to a breath sample and blew a .15. He was ticketed with two counts of DWI, No Stopping/Standing on Pavement, and Improper use of 4 Way/Hazard lights. Our attorneys met with the ADA before the client’s arraignment and explained that he wanted to be a firefighter, was leaving the Army soon on a medical discharge. Through extensive negotiation and presentation of equities our client was offered a plea to one count DWAI, with the minimum fine. This allowed our client to pursue his chosen post-military career as a firefighter.

People v. D.F. Our client was driving back from a party and became distracted which caused him to stop paying attention and swerve out of his lane. He was stopped and ultimately took a Breathalyzer yielding a .13. Our client is enlisted in the Army, and the Army is currently reducing its numbers. Anyone who receives an alcohol related conviction can be discharged and their benefits are terminated. Our client confirmed this with his chain of command. After ongoing negotiations, our client was allowed to plead to one count of Reckless Driving and one count “Moved from lane Unsafely.” Our client was very happy that his Army career was not affected, as he plans on serving a full career and retiring from the Army.

People v. M.B. Our client was involved in an accident when one of his tires “blew out” and his vehicle left the road and struck a tree. Client did not remember anything else as his head went through a window. e was transported to a hospital by helicopter due to severe bleeding. Troopers responded and had a blood sample drawn which indicated a BAC of .13. Client has a prior AI from 2004. He had a previous attorney who secured a DWI offer but due to lack of communication the case was pending for close to two years. Our attorneys took over the case and submitted proof that the BAC result was likely inadmissible. Our client was able to enter a plea to one count of Reckless Driving, a non-alcohol related charge, in full satisfaction. Despite the new tough New York DWI laws, our client was able to keep his license.

People v. B.S. Our client was operating a Jetski out near Alexandria Bay when he was stopped for speeding. Our client had a criminal record as well as a current order of protection against him. He was coming back from a party when he was stopped. These factors aside, our attorneys pointed out the weaknesses in the prosecutions’ case. The reason for the stop was suspect (supposed speeding), and Field Sobriety Tests were conducted using two moving boats. Despite a BAC of .23 our client was offered and accepted a plea to one count of BWAI in full satisfaction. Our client ended up saving a lot of money in fines and surcharges and ended up with a violation despite having a BAC almost three times the limit.

People v. R.P. Law enforcement said our client had a BAC of 0.21 and had caused an accident in which he rolled his vehicle. During extensive negotiations with the prosecution, we were able to demonstrate that the accident was caused by inclement weather and our client had extensive equities from prior military combat experience. The result was an offer to a DWAI which is a non-criminal traffic infraction that – due to the accident and high BAC – was significantly outside of the District Attorney’s reduction policy.

People vs. J.W. In this case our client was a veteran in the U.S. Military. He had been out with some friends having drinks and on his way home drove into a ditch. From there he started walking home. While walking he got a call from the police where he admitted to being in the accident and gave the officers his address. He was ultimately charged with two misdemeanor counts of DWI after allegedly blowing a .09 BAC. The client was concerned about his security clearance and his career. We were able to convince the ADA to offer a plea to driving across the hazard markings and leaving the scene tickets, emphasizing that our client was very cooperative and in fact directed the officers to him. His low BAC and our extensive work to help this client allowed him to avoid and alcohol conviction and continue serving our country without any additional ramifications.

People v.s R.W. Client was involved in an accident on his motorcycle while he was on a charity ride. Client had an injury to his toe and had to be hospitalized. At the hospital, client had his blood drawn. The blood ultimately came back at a .13. Client was charged with two counts of misdemeanor DWI. Due to intense negotiations with the ADA handling the case, we were able to avoid having the client’s license suspended while we were attempting to negotiate a disposition. Eventually we were able to negotiate a DWAI plea. This was an excellent result for the client as it resulted in client not having to plea to a misdemeanor. It also was due to our extensive work on the case that we were able to get the ADA to go outside of the county policy. Typically the ADA would not reduce a DWI charge where there was an accident or where there was a prior DWAI conviction. In this case we were able to get the result we needed even though there was an accident and our client had previously been convicted or DWAI by showing the ADA the weaknesses of the case.

People vs. J.S. Our client in this case has had ongoing issues of PTSD due to his military service. These issues facilitated his making a poor choice to drink and drive, he was ultimately stopped and arrested at a roadblock. Our client had a previous DWAI so it was the DA’s policy to not reduce this charge as it was his second offense. Our team wanted to help our client with not only his mental issues but to avoid a criminal conviction. We helped our client get into some intensive counseling that was specific to his PTSD and his military service. Through such counseling and treatment, our client was able to demonstrated that in dealing with his ongoing issues he was taking this matter seriously and that it should not be an issue for him in future. Our team was able to demonstrate these factors to the ADA and show that while our client had made poor decisions, he was particularly deserving of some consideration due to his service of our country. We were able to persuade the prosecutor to deviate from the policy and give our client another chance to avoid being labeled as a criminal. The hard work of our team and our client made it possible for him to plead to the non criminal violation of DWAI. Without the extra efforts of our team and client he could have ended up in a much worse situation.

People vs. N.W. Our client was charged with speeding (88 in a 65) and a DWAI due to having a .07 BAC level according to the breath test. In this case our team of attorneys knew that the situation was much different for our client given that she had a New Jersey license. Even though her BAC was relatively low, a typical DWAI offer would not help our client as it could result in up to a two year suspension of her driving privileges in New Jersey. It took many lengthy conversations with the ADA handling the case but we were able to negotiate a disposition that allowed our client to two violations that were unrelated to speed and alcohol. The allowed our client to avoid any potential consequences to her license in NJ, escape with minimal fines, and no criminal record.

People vs. C.C. In this case our client was charged with boating while intoxicated, boating while above a .08, and reckless operation. The client was alleged to have been operating a boat while his BAC was a .19. The client insisted that it was not he who was driving the boat at the time that they were stopped by law enforcement. We told the prosecutor the client’s version of the events and provided him with an affidavit by another person on the boat who claimed they were driving the boat. Given the difficulties in the case the prosecutor agreed to an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal (ACOD). This allowed our client to avoid any penalties whatsoever. As long as he gets in not further trouble with the law during the next 6 months the case against him will be dismissed in its entirety.

People vs. M.M We were retained by a client who had blown into the interlock device on his vehicle and registered a .10. The DA’s office wanted the client violated on his previous conviction which included a conditional discharge. We argued to the judge and the ADA that the client actually was not in violation of any condition of his previous plea. The condition was that he have the interlock installed, which he did. There was no condition that he not drink or that he pass each time he blew into the interlock device. The judge agreed with our argument and kept our client on the original conditions. This allowed our client to avoid probation or jail, which could have resulted from a violation of the conditional discharge. By knowing the law and being able to apply it to this specific case our client received no new consequences due to his error in judgment.

People vs. J.H. Client charged twice in 4 months, in both situations we were able to plead client out to non-alcohol/non-criminal offenses. In the 2nd charge we took the case to trial, just before the trial we tried one last push based on the facts and circumstances of the case to get a non-alcohol/non-criminal offenses. The ADA went to speak with the officer after this conference and at this point the ADA agreed to drop the case and have the client plead guilty to “following to closely”.

People vs. E.B.Our client was involved in a head-on collision and charged with DWI. In light of her prior DWAI conviction, she faced possible jail time and revocation of her driver license. Our efforts on her behalf yielded a result that pleased the client and her husband. She pleaded guilty to the reduced count of DWAI and a traffic violation, and she avoided the more serious penalties allowed by law.

People vs. J.H. Our client was charged with DWAI while a prior DWAI charge was still pending. However, we were still able to leverage doubts regarding the proofs of intoxication used against our client, and he pleaded to a lesser non-alcohol related charge. Our client did not serve any jail time and retained his license.

People vs. W.L. Our client was charged with DWI. Despite a recent DWAI conviction, we were able to negotiate a plea to a reduced DWAI charge. Our client was not required to serve any jail time.

People vs. C.M. Our client was charged with DWI. Because he earned his living with his commercial driver license, it was critical we avoid revocation of his license. This goal was achieved when our client pled to a reduced charge, paid a small fine, and went back to work.