Results-Oriented Traffic Law Attorney in Rochester, NY
Vast Majority Of Traffic Law Clients Never Have To Appear In Court
Need DWI help?
Case Study 1
People v. N.D. (Bkpt Vil. Ct., 3/21) & People v. M.N. (Roch. Traffic Bureau, 3/21
Mr. Corletta helps 2 young drivers keep licenses
Young drivers have greater restrictions on their licenses if they receive high-point traffic violations. A high-point traffic violation of 15 mph or more over the speed limit can immediately suspend a young driver’s license. Yet young drivers often make mistakes while “fooling around” or experimenting behind the wheel.
Mr. Corletta was recently confronted with this situation in two separate cases; one where a young driver faced 8 points if convicted, and the other where a young driver faced 11 points if convicted. In both situations, the young driver looked at an immediate suspension of their license.
In both cases; People v. N.D. (Bkpt. Vill. Ct., 3/21), and People v. M.N. (Roch. Traffic Bureau, 3/21), Mr. Corletta, acted quickly by explaining the circumstances to the Prosecutor, and sending his young clients to Defensive Driver Courses, was able to reduce each infraction to 0-point violations, thereby not only saving their licenses but saving them thousands of dollars in insurance premiums and possible placement in the risk pool.
Each client used their vehicle for their employment and school, an added factor in plea negotiations with each Prosecutor.
Naturally, both clients were extremely gratified with their results. Both attended the Defensive Driver Course, which reduced their insurance premium rates, turning a potential negative into a positive.
Case Study 3
People v. D.F. (Brighton Tn. Ct., 10/21).
MR. CORLETTA USES PRECEDENT FROM PREVIOUS CASE TO OBTAIN 0-POINT VIOLATION IN SERIOUS TRAFFIC CASE.
Knowing the law and using prior precedent is what a lawyer should do. Mr. Corletta used one of his own prior precedents to obtain a reduction in a serious traffic matter in People v. D.F. (Brighton Tn. Ct., 10/21).
In that case, Mr. Corletta’s client was charged with Failure to Yield to Emergency Vehicle. The client was charged under New York State’s “Move Over” Law, rather than under the regular Failure to Yield to Emergency Vehicle statute. They are two different sections of the law.
Mr. Corletta pointed out this discrepancy and requested dismissal, arguing that his client was charged under the wrong section of the law, because the Accusatory Instrument did not allege a “move over” violation. He cited a prior case he handled that was recently published in the New York Law Reports.
The Court noted there appeared to be a difference in the ticket filed with the Court versus the one the client received. The ticket filed with the Court appeared to charge the correct section of the law. Mr. Corletta argued defendants are entitled to proper notice of the charge filed against them and all his client could address was the ticket served on them.
There was a lengthy argument back and forth between the Court, Mr. Corletta, and the District Attorney.
Then, Mr. Corletta, being well prepared, showed his client’s Certificate of Completion of a Defensive Driver Course and approached the bench. He proposed a compromise; a mere parking violation and nominal fine, with the more serious charge being withdrawn and dismissed.
Mr. Corletta sensed the matter could go either way, although he knew he was right. The Court and District Attorney quickly agreed. The client pled guilty to a parking violation, paid a $25.00 fine. The client’s license and insurance was not affected.
The client actually received a reduction on their insurance premium due to completing the Defensive Driver Course at Mr. Corletta’s direction.
Mr. Corletta thinking quickly on his feet, pivoted, and still obtained a favorable disposition for his client. That would not have occurred without bringing the Motion to Dismiss in the first place.
It is always better to place issues before the Court. That is the best way to obtain a favorable disposition. It puts the client in a position to leverage a favorable disposition, as opposed to what many defense attorneys do, which is to complain, whine, or say their client is a “good person”.
This approach gains little respect from Prosecutors and Courts. This was shown by the Court’s comments to Mr. Corletta in that he always makes “interesting arguments”. By making an interesting argument and advocating for your client, you place the client in a better position to succeed by showing some effort.
Case Study 2
Commonwealth v. M.L. (9/22)
MR. CORLETTA ACHIEVES SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION
IN OUT OF STATE CASE.
Mr. Corletta demonstrated his ability to adapt and learn the law and procedure in other jurisdictions in Commonwealth v. M.L. (9/22).
In that case, the client was ticketed for excessive speed in Pennsylvania. However, the speed measuring device was not the usual Radar or Laser.
Rather, it was 1970s technology, known as “Vascar”, which utilizes the algebraic formula of Rate x Time = Distance. Using Vascar, a vehicle’s speed is calculated over a fixed distance by measuring the period of time the vehicle took to travel a predetermined distance. This is then converted into an estimated speed. Vascar is still used in a number of jurisdictions.
Making it doubly difficult, the client’s speed was estimated at nearly 30 miles over the speed limit. Further, prosecutors in this area of Pennsylvania do not handle speeding tickets, which required Mr. Corletta to contact the arresting Officer directly.
Mr. Corletta also had to research Pennsylvania law, as he had to determine what the point system was in Pennsylvania, because any conviction would transfer to the client’s New York license pursuant to the Interstate License Compact, of which both states are members.
Mr. Corletta overcame all of these obstacles and negotiated a significant reduction in the charge by contacting the Officer and explaining the client’s circumstances. As a direct result, the client pled guilty to a minor violation, which will not impact their insurance.
The client, quite impressed by Mr. Corletta’s diligent and effective efforts, thanked him in a handwritten note for “having their back”. This type of note makes the practice of law worthwhile.
Case Study 4
People v. MJ (Macedon Tn. Ct., 8/22).
MR. CORLETTA OBTAINS DISMISSAL OF 6 TRAFFIC CHARGES,
INCLUDING 2 ALCOHOL-RELATED MISDEMEANORS FOR
CLIENT WITH BAD DRIVING RECORD
Sometimes, people with license suspensions or revocations simply continue to drive. They drive out of necessity. They play the odds they will not get caught. The odds are usually in their favor. They do this because the requirements to restore their license, and the monetary fines and penalties placed on them by the state, are usually too onerous for them to do.
They usually get caught at the least opportune time and when they least expect it. This was the case in People v. MJ (Macedon Tn. Ct., 8/22). In this case, the client was working when pulled over for multiple equipment violations. There was no bad driving. However, the client’s van was out of inspection and there were numerous equipment violations.
Upon being stopped, he discovered the client’s license was suspended for alcohol-related offense and issued the client a ticket for driving with a suspended license due to an alcohol-related conviction, which requires mandatory incarceration if convicted. The client, suddenly frantic, expected to clear the problem up all at once by paying all their fines and civil penalties accumulated over a ten year period. Mr. Corletta advised the client it would not be that easy and would not affect disposition of the current charges.
However, examining the Accusatory Instruments and using the tools provided in the CPL, Mr. Corletta noticed deficiencies in the Accusatory Instruments and requested a Supporting Deposition on all 6 charges.
Both the police and Court botched the Request for Supporting Deposition. The police failed to file the Supporting Deposition with the Court in a timely fashion, and failed to send the Supporting Depositions to Mr. Corletta; the client’s attorney, as required by statute.
Mr. Corletta pointed this out at the first Court appearance to a flustered Court,, and made an oral Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Corletta even cited a previous Decision from that very Court on this issue. In the end, the DA was forced to agree with Mr. Corletta and all 6 charges, including the 2 misdemeanor charges, were dismissed at a single Court appearance.
The client, who previously thought they would be going to jail, could not believe it.
The point is there is always something an attorney can do, even in the most adverse situations, if they know the law and use it.
Thomas A Corletta Attorney at Law
Rochester NY 14614
Monday – Friday
9:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M.