Driving To Suspension

A six-month suspension has been imposed by the New York Appellate Division for the Second Judicial Department

As alleged in a criminal complaint, on or about December 19, 2014, the respondent was driving a 2003 Nissan Altima at approximately 11:00 p.m. on Baychester Avenue in Bronx County. Upon being stopped by the police, he was observed to have bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, a flushed face, and an unsteady gait, and a strong odor of alcohol emanated from his person. The respondent allegedly stated to the police that he had drunk two glasses of wine. The respondent’s blood alcohol content (hereinafter BAC) reading on a breathalyzer test was 0.265%. The respondent testified at the hearing that he was leaving a Jamaican restaurant with his friends on his birthday and that the police “troll” Baychester Avenue. The respondent was stopped for failing to have his headlights on, which he stated was not possible as “[m]odern” cars are equipped with automatic headlights. However, he entered a plea of guilty in that matter upon the advice of counsel.

Thereafter, on April 17, 2017, at approximately 2:16 a.m., while the Bronx County proceeding was still pending, the respondent was arrested in Mount Vernon. The respondent was observed by the police driving a 2012 Honda and to be “drifting back and forth on the roadway almost hitting a guard rail and parked cars.” The respondent had a strong odor of alcohol, was unable to follow simple directions, and had poor coordination and bloodshot eyes. The respondent refused to take a breathalyzer test. The respondent informed the police that he was driving home from a friend’s house. The respondent testified at the hearing that he was stopped by the police after dropping off his son and as such, he “would certainly have not been under the influence.” He testified that he refused the breathalyzer test due to the “aggressiveness” of the police officer. Again, on the advice of counsel, the respondent entered a plea of guilty.

Between April 23, 2019, and August 14, 2019, the Department of Probation made four reports to the Mount Vernon City Court that the respondent violated the terms of his probation. As alleged by the respondent’s probation officer, on March 25, 2019, the respondent returned from an approved trip to Jamaica; however, upon his return, the respondent failed to continue his required outpatient treatment and was discharged from the program. The respondent’s probation officer further alleged that the respondent failed to appear for his scheduled probation appointments on March 27, 2019, and April 22, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the respondent admitted that he violated the terms of his probation and was referred to a driving while intoxicated monitoring program. In a report dated September 3, 2019, the respondent’s probation officer alleged that the respondent was ordered to enter into an inpatient program on August 15, 2019, and was further ordered to wear a Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring (hereinafter SCRAM) bracelet due to his refusal to be drug tested while on probation. As further alleged, when the respondent presented to be fitted for the SCRAM bracelet, he could not be fitted for the device because he had alcohol in his system, resulting in a BAC level of 0.135. Thereafter, on November 12, 2019, the respondent’s probation was restored and extended to May 21, 2021.

On January 26, 2021, the respondent again admitted that he violated the terms of his probation by traveling to Jamaica despite the denial of two applications for court permission to travel there. The respondent was resentenced on that date in Mount Vernon City Court to a one-year conditional discharge and ordered to complete a substance abuse treatment program.

At the disciplinary hearing, despite admitting to violating the terms of his probation, the respondent testified that he cooperated in every way possible but that his probation officer was “proactively aggressive.” The respondent also submitted evidence of his good character and his dedication to serving his community.

Sanction

Under the totality of the circumstances, including the respondent’s multiple convictions, the violations of the terms of his probation, his prior disciplinary history, and his August 20, 2025 submission of evidence of his good character, we find that the respondent’s conduct warrants his suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months.

The suspension is imposed until further court order. (Mike Frisch)