Skip to main content
contact us

Copyright SJKP LLP Law Firm all rights reserved

Case Results

Based on our recently accumulated litigation database, we provide customized solutions based on a thoroughly analyzed litigation database.

Breath Test Refusal Defense in New York | Mitigated Fine Through Strategic Legal Representation



In New York, allegations involving a breath test refusal carry severe legal consequences under the Vehicle and Traffic Law (VTL). 

 

A refusal triggers administrative penalties, potential criminal exposure, and license revocation proceedings before the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV).


This case study examines how a New York DUI defense attorney represented a client charged with breath test refusal and successfully secured a mitigated fine, avoiding the more serious sanctions often imposed in such cases.


Because refusal cases rely heavily on statutory procedure and lawful police conduct, a focused defense strategy made it possible to highlight mitigating factors, rehabilitative efforts, and the absence of aggravating circumstances.

contents


1. Breath Test Refusal in New York | Legal Framework & Case Background (breath test refusal New York case background)


Breath Test Refusal in New York

 

 

 

Under VTL §1194, a driver who refuses to submit to a chemical breath test following lawful arrest faces mandatory penalties. 

 

A refusal hearing is typically held before a DMV Administrative Law Judge in addition to any criminal proceedings.


This case originated when the client, emotionally distressed and still recovering from personal hardship, declined to comply with an officer’s breath test request in a residential parking area after driving home from a social gathering.



Case Background and Circumstances


The client had recently gone through a difficult separation and had consumed alcohol with friends before driving home. 

 

After parking his vehicle, he remained inside momentarily when an officer approached and requested a chemical breath test.


Fearing severe consequences and acting out of anxiety rather than defiance, the client refused.

 

Although the refusal was deemed valid under VTL §1194(2), the absence of erratic driving, collision, or public safety risk became key mitigating elements.


The attorney documented the client’s personal challenges, lack of prior violations, and immediate cooperation during the investigative process to contextualize the refusal incident.



2. Breath Test Refusal New York Defense Strategy | Mitigation and Evidence Development


A breath test refusaltriggers strict penalties, including civil fines and license revocation. 

 

However, New York law still permits a defense attorney to present mitigating evidence during proceedings to influence the outcome.


In this case, the attorney focused on character evidence, rehabilitation efforts, and procedural accuracy.



Demonstrating Acceptance of Responsibility and Remorse


The client admitted wrongdoing from the outset and worked closely with counsel to submit a detailed, sincere written statement addressing:

 

• The emotional state and fear based decision leading to the refusal

• Understanding of legal obligations under VTL §1194

• Concrete steps taken to prevent recurrence

 

This helped differentiate the client from individuals who intentionally obstruct chemical testing, a distinction the court found significant.



Establishing a Clean Record and Low Recidivism Risk


The attorney verified that the client had:

 

• No DUI, DWI, or refusal related offenses within the past 10 years

• No recent traffic violations or safety related incidents

• Stable employment and community ties

 

These factors reinforced the conclusion that the refusal was a single, isolated mistake rather than habitual conduct.



3. Breath Test Refusal New York | Socioeconomic Hardship and Sentencing Considerations


New York criminal courts are permitted to evaluate personal and financial hardship during sentencing. 

 

Although courts cannot disregard statutory elements of VTL §1194, they may impose a lower fine when fairness supports mitigation.


The defense attorney demonstrated that heightened sanctions would place unreasonable financial strain on the client, who was already burdened by reduced income and post divorce expenses.



Economic Circumstances Supporting Leniency


Supporting documentation included:

 

• Employment and income records

• Records of divorce related obligations

• Statements showing current debt and living expenses

 

These materials helped the court understand the disproportionate impact a maximum fine would impose.


Because refusal penalties involve significant civil assessments and administrative fees, demonstrating financial hardship was crucial in arguing for proportional sanctions.



4. Breath Test Refusal New York | Case Outcome and Practical Takeaways


After reviewing the defense submission, the court accepted the attorney’s mitigation argument and imposed a reduced fine. 

 

Though New York law requires civil and administrative consequences for refusal, the outcome in this case was significantly more favorable than typical refusal cases.


The client avoided enhanced penalties, avoided jail exposure, and preserved future eligibility for driving privileges.



Key Lessons for Individuals Facing Breath Test Refusal Allegations


• A refusal does not automatically result in the harshest penalty; competent legal representation can influence outcomes.

 

• Immediate consultation with counsel helps clarify procedural defenses, hearing requirements, and the scope of VTL §1194 penalties.

 

• Proactive steps character statements, counseling, and financial documentation play an important role in mitigation.


03 Dec, 2025


The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or relying on the contents of this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with our firm. For advice regarding your specific situation, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
Certain informational content on this website may utilize technology-assisted drafting tools and is subject to attorney review.

Book a Consultation
Online
Phone
CLICK TO START YOUR CONSULTATION
Online
Phone