DUI Attorney in Brooklyn NY Secures Probation

The client had previously been convicted of multiple alcohol related driving offenses, including prior cases that resulted in monetary penalties, suspended sentences, and a period of incarceration.

Because New York courts treat repeat DUI offenses as aggravating factors at sentencing, the existence of prior custodial history significantly increased the likelihood of renewed jail time.

At the time of arraignment, the prosecution emphasized the client’s recidivism and argued that prior non custodial and probationary dispositions had failed to deter similar conduct.

Counsel conducted a detailed review of the criminal complaint, breath analysis records, and arrest documentation to confirm procedural compliance under New York law.

Although the arrest itself was legally valid, the client’s recorded blood alcohol concentration was below the level that would qualify as an aggravated DWI under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law.

This factual detail became relevant during sentencing advocacy to contextualize the severity of the offense without minimizing responsibility.

Following earlier incarceration, the client had refrained from alcohol related driving for an extended period and had significantly altered daily routines to avoid future violations.

Evidence was presented showing relocation closer to the workplace to eliminate the need for long distance driving, as well as voluntary enrollment in alcohol education and prevention programs.

These steps were documented through certificates, attendance records, and third party verification to ensure credibility before the court.

The defense also emphasized the client’s role as the sole caregiver for an elderly parent with ongoing medical needs and as the primary guardian of a minor child following divorce.

The circumstances surrounding the offense were carefully explained, including that the incident occurred after a family gathering and did not involve reckless driving, property damage, or injury.

While not offered as an excuse, this context was presented to demonstrate that the conduct was situational rather than indicative of escalating danger to the public.

Despite the client’s history of prior DUI convictions, the court ultimately imposed a probationary sentence rather than incarceration.

The decision reflected the court’s assessment that the defendant had demonstrated measurable rehabilitation efforts, stable family obligations, and a reduced likelihood of reoffending.

This outcome illustrates that even in repeat DUI cases, individualized advocacy and properly supported mitigation can materially affect sentencing results.