Articles Posted in Drunk Driving

Published on:

Sometimes, people assume that attorneys do not need to hire attorneys. However, the truth is that attorneys in Manhattan understand that only a fool will defend themselves. Hiring an attorney to represent a person who has incurred a personal injury is the smart thing to do. Lawyers are people, too. That means that there are times when a lawyer will hire a lawyer to help them defend themselves from a situation. These situations can come in the form of automobile accidents, estate matters, real estate matters, or personal injury. There are even times when an attorney is required to hire another attorney to defend them against a criminal matter.

Recently, in 2012, a prominent attorney was called upon to defend himself from charges of DUI that stemmed from his driving in the city of Atlanta. He slid through a traffic light at three in the morning when he thought that no one was around on his way home from a meeting with state legislatures where he had consumed two glasses of wine with dinner. Although, his driving had not endangered anyone, and he had not demonstrated any level of impairment by failing to maintain his lane of traffic, the officer who stopped him asked that he perform field sobriety tests. Field sobriety tests are voluntary. However, if you choose to perform them, your demeanor and the results of the tests can be used against you in a court of law. The attorney decided that he would not participate. He refused to participate and he was arrested by the officer for DUI and taken for a mandatory test under the laws of the state. The charges were eventually dropped with the help of a DUI attorney that was hired by the arrested attorney to defend him. Even attorneys need one every now and then.

Another case in Staten Island that involved an attorney who required legal assistance from a specialist in the field, involved a case of defamation and breach of contract that was filed by an attorney in the State of New York in 2006. The complainant attorney was not getting along with the other attorneys in her firm and decided to resign. When she left the firm, several of the clients that she had been serving chose to leave that firm and maintain her as their lawyer. The controlling partner of the law firm wrote several letters to these clients encouraging them to leave her and return to his firm. The complaining lawyer, filed a lawsuit alleging that the managing partner of her previous firm had defamed her character and breached the hiring contract that she had with him. The managing partner filed a motion with the New York State Court System to grant him a motion of summary judgment dismissing her case against him for lack of evidence.

Continue reading

Published on:

A personal injury action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred at the intersection of Oceanside Road and Erwin Place in Oceanside, New York. Among other injuries, the woman suffered a traumatic brain injury.

On June 30, 2010, the Court denied the opponents’ motions for summary judgment to dismiss the woman’s complaint. The Court determined that, as the woman had yet to testify at her sworn examination before trial, the accused men’s motion for summary judgment must be denied as premature. The Court also determined that because both accused men have failed to demonstrate that the Town of Hempstead Building Zone Ordinances do not apply to them, the motion and cross motion must be denied. Finally, the Court also held that, because the driver’s operation of his motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol arguably may be deemed by the trier of fact to be a superseding cause of the woman’s injuries, the accused men’s motions for summary judgment to dismiss the woman’s action based in negligence must be denied.

The core of the Queens woman’s allegations against the accused men relates to certain bushes located between the residences, which bushes are alleged to block the view of traffic. The woman alleges that the overgrown nature of the bushes, which she claim are in contravention of height requirements provided in local ordinances, contributed in some measure to the occurrence of the serious traffic accident.

Continue reading

Published on:

This case involves a ruling of the Court wherein the motion to suppress the blood test of the defendant on the ground that the court order and supporting affidavit are defective was denied.

A car accident occurred in Bayvile Avenue in the Incorporated Village of Bayville between two vehicles. The responding officer, who arrived at 2:22 A.M., noticed that the defendant was the driver of the overturned car and had some facial lacerations in the vicinity of the forehead and one of his cheeks. The other car was a red car who sustained severe damages in the front and passenger side which led to the wrongful death of one of the passengers. Drivers of both passengers were transported to the community hospital. Police officer arrived at 2:55 A.M. Upon inquiry, defendant said to the Police Officer that he was originally heading westbound on Bayville Avenue.” The Police Officer then asked the defendant, “are you sure you were westbound or eastbound?” and “were you headed toward your parents’ house or away from it?” The defendant “finally said that he was heading towards his parents’ house which was eastbound”.

While talking with the Brooklyn defendant, the Police Officer noticed an odor of alcoholic beverages on defendant’s breath. He described the odor as moderate level which wasn’t overly strong but it was noticeable even the officer was two feet away during the conversation. The Police Officer told the defendant that he is being placed under arrest for suspicion of driving while intoxicated. At 3:50 A.m., the Police Officer asked the defendant to submit himself to a chemical analysis of his breath. The defendant consulted his lawyer and thereafter refused to take the test. Following the refusal, which was about 4:20 A.M., efforts were made to get a court order. At approximately 5:30 A.M., a court order had been obtained and blood was taken from the defendant at 5:50 A.M.

Continue reading

Published on:

This case was brought about by a car accident involving a Pontiac automobile which crashed into the living room of the house of the plaintiff-decedent after being pursued by members of the Suffolk County Police Department. The vehicle was owned by defendant-corporation, which rented the car to defendant-lessee, who alleged that defendant-perpetrator took possession of the subject vehicle without her knowledge or consent.

Defendant-corporation sought the dismissal of the complaint and alleged that it is the owner of the subject vehicle, as well as a company in the business of renting automobiles and is therefore insulated from liability by operation of the “Graves Amendment” as codified at 42 USCA §30106 and which is a part of the Federal Transportation Equity Act. Hence, all claims asserted against defendant-corporation must be dismissed as a matter of law.

Defendant-corporation’s Senior Loss Control Administrator stated that in December of 2006, it was the owner of the 2006 Pontiac automobile bearing the license plate CWJ197. He further states that on December 20, 2006, said vehicle was rented to defendant-lessee. The two affidavits authored by defendant-lessee revealed that she was not the owner of the 2006 Pontiac automobile but rather rented same on December 20, 2006 from defendant-corporation and that defendant-perpetrator operated the subject automobile without her knowledge, permission or consent.

Continue reading

Published on:

This involves a case where the court ruled that plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case that he suffered serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law Section 5102 (d).

Plaintiff, age 24, alleged that on August 21, 2006, at approximately 11:20 a.m., a motor vehicle owned and operated by him came into contact with a vehicle owned by defendant owner and operated by defendant driver. The car accidentoccurred on Old Country Road, at its intersection with Frost Street, County of Nassau, Long Island. Defendants moved for an order dismissing plaintiffs complaint pursuant to CPLR §3212, on grounds that plaintiff failed to sustain a “serious injury” within the meaning of Insurance Law §5102(d).

Insurance Law §5102(d) provides that a “serious injury means a personal injury which results in (1) death; (2) dismemberment; (3) significant disfigurement; (4) a fracture; (5) loss of a fetus; (6) permanent loss of use of a body organ, member, function or system; (7) permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member; (8) significant limitation of use of a body function or system; or (9) a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents the injured person from performing substantially all of the material acts which constitute such person’s usual and customary daily activities for not less than ninety days during the one hundred eighty days immediately following the occurrence of the injury or impairment” (numbered by the Court). The Court’s consideration in this action is confined to whether plaintiffs injuries constitute a permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or member (7) or significant limitation of use of a body function or system.

Continue reading

Published on:

On 18 to 19 October 2007, at around midnight, the defendant went to the Island Rock nightclub in Hempstead with his girlfriend, a friend of his girlfriend and another individual. After drinking alcohol at the nightclub, the defendant and the other individual left and went to a nearby parking lot. At that time, the defendant did not appear intoxicated. According to the girlfriend’s friend, the defendant stated in the parking lot that he lost his shit, presumably referring to drugs, and the defendant became upset. The defendant went into the trunk of his car and searched for something. The defendant then began arguing with his girlfriend. At approximately 3:15 A.M., several witnesses heard gunshots, but no one reported having seen the defendant fire a gun. The defendant then angrily ordered the girlfriend’s friend to leave with his girlfriend, which they did, driving the defendant’s girlfriend home. The defendant and the other individual then entered the defendant’s vehicle, with the defendant driving. When police officers arrived at the parking lot only minutes later, at about 3:20 A.M., the defendant had left, and the officers recovered several 9–millimeter shell casings in the parking lot. At approximately 3:30 A.M., the defendant’s vehicle was seen traveling west in the eastbound lanes of the Southern State Parkway at a speed of 70 to 75 miles per hour. According to numerous witnesses, the defendant’s vehicle traveled in the wrong direction from about exit 19 to exit 13, a distance of approximately five miles. A witness observed the defendant driving directly at him while changing lanes. That witness had to immediately pull his vehicle onto the shoulder to avoid a collision. This long Island witness saw that the defendant continued driving the wrong way, and the witness observed the other vehicles on the parkway split apart in order to get away from the defendant. The witness testified that the defendant was steadily going, not braking, nothing; that he was just going; that he was speeding. Meanwhile, another witness, a Police Sergeant was also driving in the proper direction in the left eastbound lane of the parkway. As the Sergeant passed exit 14, he observed the defendant’s vehicle driving towards him at a very high rate of speed, which caused the Sergeant to violently turn his steering wheel to the right to avoid a collision. The defendant’s car came within inches of the Sergeant’s vehicle. According to the Sergeant, the defendant made absolutely no effort to get out of the way. Near exit 13, the defendant’s vehicle, without ever having slowed down, collided with the victim’s vehicle, killing the victim instantly and incinerating the victim’s vehicle. When emergency services and police arrived on the scene and attempted to remove the defendant from his damaged vehicle, the defendant was agitated and his breath emitted a strong odor of alcohol. Following the defendant’s arrest, a blood sample taken from him at 4:49 A.M., just over an hour after the motor vehicle accident, indicated that his blood alcohol content (hereinafter BAC) was 0.19%. After the defendant was removed from his vehicle, the police began conducting an inventory search of the vehicle. The discovery of several 9–millimeter rounds in the trunk, however, transformed the search from inventory to investigatory, during which the police recovered a 9–millimeter semiautomatic pistol, what was later determined to be .395 grams of cocaine (cocaine possession) beneath the front passenger seat, and 41 rounds of 9–millimeter bullets contained in a partially loaded magazine and a box in the trunk. The gun recovered from the defendant’s vehicle matched the shell casings found in the parking lot near the nightclub.

Consequently, the defendant was arrested and charged. On 16 September 2008, the County Court, Nassau County, found him guilty of murder in the second degree, vehicular manslaughter in the first degree, aggravated driving while intoxicated or DWI, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.

The defendant filed an omnibus motion to suppress physical evidence which was denied by the court. The defendant then appeals from the said decision of the court.

Continue reading

Published on:

On 16 April 2006, an officer was on routine motor patrol in Levittown, County of Nassau in the State of New York. At approximately 12:55 a.m., he received a radio assignment to respond to an automobile accident/motor vehicle accident at the intersection of Hempstead Turnpike and Wolcott Road. Upon arriving at the scene, the officer testified that he observed two vehicles which had obviously been involved in an accident. One vehicle had rear end damage and the other vehicle had extensive front end damage. The officer first approached the vehicle with extensive front end damage, a Saturn Sports Utility Vehicle. The officer asked the individual seated in the driver’s seat of the Saturn, the herein defendant, if he was ok and what happened. The defendant stated that he was driving his car when he hit the other vehicle. The officer testified that the Defendant had glassy bloodshot eyes and spoke with slurred speech. The officer also detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the vehicle. The officer asked the defendant if he had anything to drink. The defendant stated that he had Martinis. Upon the defendant exiting the vehicle, the officer indicated that the defendant had difficulty maintaining his balance. Thus, the officer reached the conclusion that the defendant was intoxicated, Driving While Intoxicated or DWI, and arrested him at approximately 1:15 a.m. The defendant was then transported to the Nassau University Medical Center for a medical evaluation.

With the officer en route to the hospital, he contacted the Nassau County Highway Patrol Bureau to request that a Highway Patrol Officer respond to the hospital with a blood kit. The purpose of the blood kit was to take a blood sample from the defendant for the purpose of testing it for the presence of alcohol. The officer testified that a Nassau County Highway Patrol Officer eventually responded to the hospital with a blood kit. The officer testified that the patrol officer requested that an emergency room nurse draw a sample of the defendant’s blood. The officer indicated that he observed an emergency room nurse draw the defendant’s blood and the sample was sealed in the blood kit box provided by the patrol officer. The officer then took custody of the blood kit.

Consequently, the defendant is charged with one (1) count of violating the Vehicle and Traffic Law, Driving While Intoxicated or DWI as an Unclassified Misdemeanor.

Continue reading

Published on:

A man was driving an SUV on Oyster Bay Expressway on January 27, 1993. He was in the left lane and a red Camaro came up behind him. The Camaro flashed his headlights on high beam at him. The SUV stayed put on the left lane. The Camaro then came up on the right lane and pulled alongside the SUV. The Camaro cut off the SUV.

The SUV was startled, he left the left land and went to the center lane. Again the Camaro pulled alongside the SUV. The driver of the SUV thought he was being carjacked so he veered away from the Camaro. The Camaro was persistent. The SUV made contact with the Camaro’s fender.

The SUV driver was now in full panic that he made an illegal U-turn on the Expressway. The Camaro followed him and flashed a badge. The Camaro tried to force the SUV off the road. It was only then that the SUV driver saw clearly that the driver of the Camaro was flashing a badge. The SUV immediately pulled over.

Continue reading

Published on:

A woman was driving on Post Road on March 4, 1982. Her car slid and skidded on the road. The driver lost control of her car and she finally stopped when her car wrapped itself around a tree on the side of the road.

The woman was unconscious. The emergency crew brought the woman to the nearest hospital and she was found to have sustained a fractured rib, a dislocated ankle and foot, cardiac and pulmonary contusions and a ruptured spleen.

The woman had to undergo several surgeries to treat her internal injuries. A graft had to be made on a vein in her broken right leg. A metal pin had to be inserted into the broken shin bone. Her spleen also had to be excised. The woman stayed in the hospital for five months. She was transferred to another hospital and stayed there for one more month. When she was discharged from the hospital after six months after the accident, the woman had to stay and recuperate in bed under the constant care of a private nurse. The woman was heavily medicated as she recovered from her relatives.

Continue reading

Published on:

Police officers were called to the scene of a car accident at the corner of Connecticut and West Beach Streets. Two cars were involved in the mishap: a Chevrolet with damage to its front bumper and a Volkswagen with damage to its rear bumper.

The Long Island police officers asked for the licence and registration of both drivers. As the police officers were speaking with the drivers, they noticed that the driver of the Chevrolet did not smell of alcohol but his speech was slurred and he did not walk straight. The officers asked the driver of the Chevrolet to walk on a line on the side of the road but the man walked in a zigzag pattern instead.

The police officers arrested the driver of the Chevrolet and brought him to police headquarters for an alcohol breath test. AT the precinct, the breath analyzer test showed that the driver’s blood alcohol level was only 0.03. The friends of the driver who were also passengers in the car came to the police station and informed police that the driver spoke with a slight slurring and his gait was naturally uneven. They assured the police that their friend was not driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Continue reading

Contact Information