NYC Traffic Ticket Lawyer DWI Case Dismissal

The driver operated a passenger vehicle near 8th Avenue during evening traffic. The vehicle made contact with another car at low speed, and no personal injury occurred. The driver exited the vehicle, exchanged contact information, and waited briefly before leaving after both parties agreed to follow up through insurance.

Later that evening, officers contacted the driver after the other motorist reported that police assistance had not been requested at the scene. Officers administered a breath test approximately two hours after the collision. The test reflected a blood alcohol concentration above 0.08 percent, and officers charged the driver under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 and New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600.

New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 prohibits operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated or while having a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or more. The statute requires proof of intoxication at the time of vehicle operation, not merely at the time of chemical testing. 

New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 600 requires a driver involved in property damage to stop, exhibit identification, and provide insurance information. A violation requires proof that the driver knowingly left the scene without providing the required information. The prosecution must therefore establish both temporal intoxication and a failure to comply with statutory identification requirements.

The prosecution must therefore establish temporal intoxication and failure to comply with statutory identification requirements.

The central factual dispute concerned whether alcohol consumption occurred before or after vehicle operation. The driver stated that limited alcohol consumption occurred before driving and additional alcohol consumption occurred after returning home.

A NYC traffic ticket lawyer may challenge chemical test results when the timing of ingestion affects the accuracy of retroactive assumptions. The New York Court of Appeals recognizes that delayed testing may require expert testimony to establish intoxication at the moment of operation. Without reliable retrograde extrapolation evidence, the prosecution may fail to meet its burden.

Counsel reviewed surveillance video from nearby businesses. The footage confirmed that both drivers exited their vehicles and exchanged information. The video did not show evasive conduct or flight behavior.

Phone records confirmed that the driver received a police call after returning home. The timeline supported the position that additional alcohol consumption occurred only after the collision and after vehicle operation ended.

Defense counsel consulted a forensic toxicologist to evaluate absorption and elimination rates. The expert calculated a projected blood alcohol concentration at the time of operation below 0.05 percent.

Because New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 requires proof of intoxication at the time of operation, the prosecution lacked reliable evidence connecting the later breath result to the earlier driving event. The defense argued that the People could not establish intoxication beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution declined to proceed on the VTL § 1192 charge. The court dismissed the count for insufficient evidence connecting intoxication to vehicle operation.

The VTL § 600 allegation was also reviewed. Evidence demonstrated that the driver provided contact information and did not intentionally evade statutory duties. The prosecutor consented to dismissal of that charge as well.

This outcome reflects how careful statutory analysis and scientific review can prevent wrongful conviction. A skilled NYC traffic ticket lawyer can evaluate evidence, challenge improper assumptions, and assert defenses grounded in the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law. Similar fact patterns require immediate legal assessment to protect driving privileges and criminal records.