Larkin Ingrassia Andrews Criminal Defense Attorneys | September 17, 2026 | New York Law
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This article provides general information and is not legal advice for any particular matter.
Larkin Ingrassia Andrews Criminal Defense Attorneys won four consecutive New York DMV chemical test refusal hearings between August 12 and September 16, 2026. Attorney Derek S. Andrews represented the clients in all four matters. Each hearing ended in the client’s favor after our firm successfully challenged the government’s proof.
An alleged refusal of a chemical test following a DWI or DWAI arrest can lead to a separate administrative hearing before the Department of Motor Vehicles. A chemical test typically uses a sample of breath, blood, or urine to measure alcohol or drug content. A refusal finding can result in a license revocation of at least one year and a $500 civil penalty. Where the 11-point assessment applies, the resulting Driver Responsibility Assessments can total $1,425 over three years. The applicable rules, the date of the incident, prior offenses or refusals, commercial driving privileges, and the driver’s age can affect the consequences.
At the hearing, a DMV administrative law judge determines whether:
- Law enforcement had reasonable grounds to believe the motorist had been driving in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192, which addresses driving while impaired or intoxicated;
- Law enforcement made a lawful arrest;
- The motorist received a sufficient warning, in clear or unequivocal language, that refusing the test would result in immediate license suspension and subsequent revocation, regardless of whether the motorist was convicted of the underlying charge; and
- The motorist refused to submit to a chemical test or any portion of it.
Motorists, either through their attorneys or on their own behalf, may cross-examine law enforcement witnesses and present relevant evidence and witness testimony.
Law enforcement officers are generally given a second opportunity to appear if they miss the first scheduled hearing. If an officer again fails to appear, DMV may proceed based on the written report of refusal if that report is in DMV’s file. When that report is the only evidence offered, it must contain sufficient facts to establish each required element. An officer’s absence does not automatically entitle the motorist to dismissal.
DMV must find all four requirements satisfied before imposing a refusal revocation. An adverse determination may be appealed to DMV’s Administrative Appeals Board within 60 days after written notice of the determination is given.
Our four consecutive wins involved different weaknesses in the evidence. They demonstrate why the facts supporting each requirement deserve close examination by an experienced attorney.
August 12, 2026
The report of refusal recorded identical arrest and refusal times and lacked facts supporting a finding that our client had operated a motor vehicle or had been lawfully arrested. The officer failed to appear at the second hearing, leaving those gaps in the report unaddressed by officer testimony. Our client testified that she had received no warning about the consequences for her driver’s license. We challenged the report and renewed our request for dismissal based on the failure to establish adequate warnings. The judge closed the hearing in our client’s favor, explaining that the government bore the burden of resolving the unanswered questions in the evidence.
August 13, 2026
The officer failed to appear at the second hearing, and DMV did not have a report of refusal in its file. We moved to dismiss, and the judge granted the motion. Without the report or the officer’s testimony, the government lacked the evidence needed to establish its case.
August 20, 2026
In a matter involving a motor vehicle accident, the officer testified that approximately two and a half hours elapsed between the accident and the officer’s contact with our client. The officer acknowledged not knowing what had happened during that interval and testified that a witness had not seen our client consume alcohol before the accident. We argued that the evidence established neither reasonable grounds to believe our client had driven while impaired nor a lawful basis for the arrest, given the significant gap in time between the accident when our client was discovered. The judge agreed and closed the hearing in our client’s favor.
September 16, 2026
The officer did not appear, and the hearing proceeded on the written report of refusal alone. We argued that the report merely asserted that our client had refused the test without describing any specific words or conduct to support that conclusion. The judge agreed that the report was insufficient and closed the hearing in our client’s favor.
Some of these hearings illustrate why an officer’s absence should not be treated as a guaranteed dismissal. The judge considered the written report despite the officer’s failure to appear. Identifying precisely what that report failed to establish was central to the successful challenges.
Preparing for a refusal hearing requires careful review of the refusal report, any available audio/video recordings, the sequence of events, and the warnings allegedly given. Whether a client should testify also requires an individual assessment that takes into account the relevant court case. The appropriate defense depends on the evidence in each matter.
Winning a refusal hearing does not automatically resolve the associated criminal case. Although both proceedings arise from the same events, they are separate matters with different legal requirements, standards of evidence, burdens of proof, and consequences. The defense should account for both proceedings.
If you have been accused of refusing a chemical test in New York, contact Larkin Ingrassia Andrews Criminal Defense Attorneys promptly to discuss your hearing and related DWI or DWAI case. We can review the evidence, identify potential challenges, and explain how the DMV proceeding fits into your overall defense.
We conveniently serve 3 locations in New York: Middletown, Newburgh, Kingston, Orange County, Ulster County, and their surrounding areas:
Larkin Ingrassia Andrews Criminal Defense Attorneys – Middletown
626 E Main St
Middletown, NY 10940
(845) 566 5345
Larkin Ingrassia Andrews Criminal Defense Attorneys – Newburgh
356 Meadow Ave
Newburgh, NY 12550
(845) 566-5345
Larkin Ingrassia Andrews Criminal Defense Attorneys – Kingston
233 Fair St Suite #1
Kingston, NY 12401
(845) 566-5345