State
S

Top-Notch Legal Services

Legal issues can be extremely stressful as well as overwhelming. If you are going through such a trying time, it will be helpful for you to have an attorney who is well-conversant with the law. Here at the Cifrodello Law Office we take great pride and responsibility in our representation of our client's. After all they entrust us with their lives and loved ones. We present to you a short list of some of the cases Mr. Cifrodello has represented in recents months and results of those cases.

CRIMINAL MATTERS

Theft Related Cases

State v. K.M. - Defendant was allegedly observed by store security concealing merchandise and leaving the store. She was later arrested by police and charged with Shoplifting (2C:20-11(b)) and Hindering Her Apprehension (2C:29-3b(4)). She then hired Mr. Cifrodello, who maintained her innocence. After attacking the state's case, all charges against defendant were dismissed.

State v. K.B. - Defendant was shopping in Walmart when, after leaving the store, it was alleged by store employees that she had stolen certain merchandise. As a result, police were called and given a description of Defendant and the vehicle she left the premises in. A few miles away from the store Defendant was subsequently stopped by local police where it was alleged that Defendant gave a false name. Police further alleged to have smelled the odor of marijuana. Consent to search the vehicle was requested by police and granted by Defendant. During the search of the cab, police allegedly found a zip lock bag containing marijuana, as well as, various ID cards and driver licenses in different names and from various states. Police then attempted to search the trunk of the vehicle when Defendant retracted her consent. The vehicle was later impounded, and pursuant to a search warrant, police searched the remainder of the vehicle, allegedly finding store merchandise, more marijuana and another batch of drivers licenses in various names and from different states. As a result, Defendant was charged with one count of Wrongful Impersonation (4th Degree Crime), Possession of False Government Documents (3rd Degree Crime), Contempt (4th Degree Crime), Possession of CDS (Disorderly Persons Offense) and Shoplifting (Disorderly persons Offense). She was also issued traffic summonses for Operation while in Possession of CDS (39:4-49.1), Driving While Suspended (39:3-40), Careless Driving (39:4-97), Tailgating (39:4-89) and Unsafe Lane Change (39:4-88). Facing 11 years incarceration, 6 1/2 years loss of license, 9 motor vehicle points and tens of thousands of dollars in fines and penalties, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello to represent her.  After contesting both the validating of the stop and subsequent search of Defendant's vehicle, as well as, the state's proofs on the criminal charges, Defendant entered into a plea whereby Defendant pled guilty to Careless Driving (39:4-97) and Failing to Exhibit Proper Document upon request (39:3-29), with the remaining traffic summonses and ALL criminal charges being dismissed. As a result, Defendant received no criminal record, no loss of license and only 2 DMV points.

State v. B.C. - Defendant was a former employee of a major retail clothing chain where he was employed as a store manager. The former employer alleged that Defendant, through his position with the company, engaged in fraudulent practices over a six (6) month period of time, thereby resulting in the theft of thousands of dollars from the company. Defendant was charged with the crime of Theft, faced jail and/or probation and substantial fines. On top of all that, Defendant was a current green card holder. Therefore, any adverse ruling in the case would have prohibited Defendant from becoming a naturalized citizen. With the stakes so high, Defendant hired, Mr, Cifrodello. Once hired, Mr. Cifrodello engaged in an aggressive course of pre-trial discovery and motion practice. The result, Defendant was vindicated of all charges. Mr. Cifrodello is pleased to announce that Defendant is currently applying for his US citizenship and anticipates Defendant's receipt of same in the next coming months.

State v. M.G. - Defendant was charged with Theft By Unlawful Taking (4th Degree Offense). Facing an 18 month prison sentence, two (2) years probation and a $5000 fine, Mr. Cifrodello was effective in getting the matter remanded to the East Brunswick Municipal Court as a misdemeanor. Nonetheless, because defendant was in the process of applying for U.S. citizenship, a criminal conviction was not an option as it would have resulted in the denial of her application and deportation from the country. On the day of trial, and after effectively bringing to light the deficiencies of the state's case, an agreement was reached whereby the defendant would forgo the expense and uncertainty of trial and plead guilty to a non-criminal violation. The result was a $139 fine and no negative impact on her application for citizenship.  

State v. M.R. - Defendant was allegedly observed by store security concealing merchandise and exiting the store. Subsequently, police were called and defendant was charged with Shoplifting pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11(B). Facing a $1000 fine, 6 months jail, 2 years probation and a criminal record, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello. Contesting the validity of the stop, video evidence, as well as the security guard's factual account of the incident, Defendant was found NOT Guilty of the charge against him.

State v. D.P. - Via closed circuit t.v., Defendant was alleged by store security to have concealed merchandise and attempt to leave the premise. Subsequently, she was arrested and charged with Shoplifting pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:20-11(B). Hiring Mr. Cifrodello, the evidence relied upon by the state was challenged. As a result, defendant was found Not Guilty of the charge against her.

State v. E.G. - Defendant was charged with Shoplifting for allegedly attempting to conceal merchandise and leave the store without paying. Contesting the State's evidence, Mr. Cifrodello set the matter down for trial. On the day of trial, the state was not prepared and so the defense moved for a Motion to Dismiss, which was granted. The charge against defendant was dismissed.

Drug Related Cases

State v. Z.V. - Defendant, with an extensive prior criminal drug history, was sitting in his vehicle parked in a parking lot when local police were passing by and noticed him. Subsequently, police approached defendant and ordered him and his occupant to exit the car. The police began to question the defendant and his friend. During questioning the other passenger fled, however, defendant remained and was arrested. While arrested, police alleged that defendant gave consent to search the vehicle. Drug contraband was found as a result of the search. Defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello who pursued a vigorous pre-trial defense. Motions to Suppress both defendant's unmirandized statements, as well as, the warrantless search of the vehicle were filed. After arguments were heard, defendant's charges were dismissed. The same cannot be said for the passenger who fled.

State v. J.M. - Defendant was charged with Possession of CDS (2C:35-10(A)) and Possession of Paraphernalia (2C:36-2). Initially, defendant hired another attorney. While counseled, client entered a plea whereby he was entered into the Conditional Discharge program and put on probation for one (1) year. Client then violated probation, was kicked out of the program and his charges were reinstated for.  Facing thousands of dollars in fines, mandatory six (6) months loss of license (and up to 4 years), 9 months jail and 4 years probation, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello to defend him at trial. Contesting the State's evidence, motions were filed. After arguments were heard, defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted and ALL charges were dismissed.

State v. L.L. - Defendant was driving his father's vehicle when he was pulled over by police; as the registered owner's license came up suspended. Upon further investigation, a joint was allegedly observed in the front ash tray. The defendant was then ordered out of the vehicle and searched, allegedly leading to the recovery of additional CDS. Defendant was then arrested and charged with Possession of a CDS (2C:35-10(A)) and Operation of a Motor Vehicle While in Possession of CDS (39:4-49.1). Facing almost $2000 in fines and penalties, 6 months jail, 2 years probation and up to four (4) years loss of license, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello. Contesting the validity of the stop, a Motion to Suppress was filed. After arguments were heard, defendant's charges were dismissed.

State v. A.R. - Defendant was charged with Possession of CDS (2C:35-10(A)) and Possession of Paraphernalia (2C:36-2). Defendant hired other attorney initially and, while counseled, client entered into the Conditional Discharge program and put on probation for one (1) year. Client then violated probation, was kicked out of the program and his charges were reinstated for.  Facing thousands of dollars in fines, mandatory six (6) months loss of license (and up to 4 years), 9 months jail and 4 years probation, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello to defend him at trial. Readying the case for trial, Mr. Cifrodello sought to suppress the stop and object to the lab reports in question. After arguments were heard, defendant's Motion to Dismiss was granted and ALL charges were dismissed.

State v. S.D. - Defendant, with an extensive prior criminal drug history, was arrested and charge in Woodbridge Twp. with possessing a large amount of heroine. Defendant retained Mr. Cifrodello to provide an adequate defense. Once retained, Mr. Cifrodello vigorously reviewed all of the case material and argued a number of violations of Defendant's Due Process Rights resulting in a dismissal of all charges against Defendant.  

State v. R.P. - Defendant was the passenger in a motor vehicle that was stopped on Interstate 78 in Union Twp., New Jersey. State Police alleged that Defendant had attempting to discard alleged CDS, heroine, along with other contraband by throwing it out the window after the vehicle had come to a stop. Subsequent to Defendant's alleged confession, Defendant was charged with one count of Possession of a CDS (3rd Degree Felony), Evidence Tampering (4th Degree felony), Possession of a Hypodermic Syringe (Disorderly Person's Offense) and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Disorderly persons Offense). Nonetheless, after the completion of extensive motion practice by Mr. Cifrodello, contesting both the motor vehicle stop and Defendant's alleged confession, all of Defendant's charges were dismissed.   

State v. T.P. - Defendant was charged with one count of Possession of CDS and one count of Loitering to Obtain or Distribute Drugs, both disorderly Persons offenses. Contesting law enforcement's procedures, or lack thereof, during the stop and subsequent search and seizure of defendant, defendant's charges were dismissed.

State v. T.P. - Defendant was charged with Possession of Marijuana Under 50 grams, Failing to Dispose of CDS, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and one traffic ticket for Operating a Motor Vehicle While in Possession of CDS; facing 18 months in jail, 5 years probation, four (4) years loss of drivers' license and thousands of dollars in fines. After a number of successful pre-trial motions, Mr. Cifrodello was able to have all of Defendant's charges dismissed, not only saving him from the tough penalties he was facing but also the added cost of trial.   

State v. W.W. - Defendant was charged with possession of CDS, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, Operating a Motor vehicle While in Possession of CDS, Driving with an expired License and Failing to exhibit License Upon Request. After vigorous motion practice contesting the validity of the stop, search and questioning of Defendant, as well as the testing of the CDS in question, Mr. Cifrodello was successful in having all charges against Defendant Dismissed except the non-moving violation of Failing to Exhibit License (39:3-29). As a result, Defendant's entire sentence was a $189 fine; no points, loss of license, surcharges, jail or probation.  

State v. K.E. - Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that was pulled over for a minor traffic violation that quickly escalated to a full blown possession of CDS investigation. The vehicle was impounded by police, a search warrant was obtained and a search of the vehicle yielded marijuana. Defendant was then charged with Possession of a CDS (2C:35-10(A)). Contesting the basis for the search warrant, Mr. Cifrodello successfully argued that the search violated Defendant's constitutional rights. As a result, the marijuana was suppressed and the Possession charge against Defendant was dismissed.

State v. J.T. Defendant was allegedly pulled over by police while opertaing his motor vehicle in Middlesex County. After providing his credentials to police a search showed that Defendant had a warrant out for his arrest. While being searched prior to being arrested, it was alleged that police found marijuana in his pants pocket. Defendant was then arrested and charged with Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance (2C:35-10(A). After hiring Mr. Cifrodello, motions contesting the motor vehicle stop, chain of custody and validity of the State's lab results of the alleged CDS were filed and argued resulting in the dismissal of the drug charge against Defendant.

Statev. C.W. - Defendant was in the diversionary program better known as a conditional discharge, for an allegation of a misdemeanor possession of CDS. While in this program, Defendant's probation officer (PO) alleged that he provided a urine sample that came up positive for CDS and recommended his expulsion from the program. After objecting to the lab report, Mr. Cifrodello was able to successfully negotiate Defendant's re admittance into the program.

State v. B.D. - Defendant was charge with felony drug possession charges. Efforts were successfully is getting the felony charges remanded to the Municipal Court for disposition as disorderly person(s) offenses. At the Municipal level, Mr. Cifrodello argued a Motion To Dismiss on the grounds that Defendant's constitutional rights were violated. Defendant's motion was granted and ALL charges were dismissed.

State v. R.J. - Defendant's charges for Possession of CDS (2C:35-10), Possession of Paraphernalia (2C:36-2), Operation of Motor Vehicle While in Possession of CDS (39:4-49.1) and Maintenance of Lamps (39:3-66) were ALL dismissed after state could not prove its case.

State v. E.E. - Defendant was represented by prior counsel when he pled guilty to possession of drugs and was put on probation. His P.O. alleged that he violated the terms of his probation (VOP) and requested that his probation be vacated and sentenced to 3 years jail. He then hired Mr. Cifrodello, who requested a hearing. After the hearing, Defendant was fount Not Guilty of the VOP and, moreover, his request for termination of probation was granted!

State v. N.S. - Defendant was charged with one count of Possession of CDS. Contesting law enforcement's chain of custody procedures relative to the packaging, storing and transporting of the alleged CDS to the lab for analysis, as well as, the lab technicians findings, defendant's charge was dismissed.

State v. J.B. - Police were dispatched to a Texas Roadhouse on a complaint that a female (the defendant) was pasted out in the restroom. Upon arrival, the defendant was alert and sitting at a table with an employee. Upon further investigation, police searched defendant's purse and allegedly found marijuana and a bottle of vodka.  Defendant was charged with Possession of CDS (2C:35-10) and Underage Possession of Alcohol (2C:33-15). Facing 12 months jail, $2000 in fines, 4 years probation and 6-24 months loss of license, Mr. Cifrodello filed a Motion to Suppress the search of defendant's purse. Prior to hearings, Defendant accepted a plea where her criminal charge of possession was amended to a local ordinance (a non-criminal offense) and the remaining criminal charge was dismissed. As a result, defendant did not receive a criminal conviction, and so was given no jail, probation or loss of license. Her total fine was $500.

Violent Crimes

State v. P.L. - Defendant was indicted by a Union County grand jury of one count of Possession of a Weapon for a Unlawful Purpose (2nd Degree Felony), Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (3rd Degree Felony), Aggravated Assault (4th Degree Felony) and Resisting Arrest (4th degree Felony). Facing the requirement of having to serve a minimum of 85% of his sentence before parole eligibility under the No Early Release Act (NERA) due to the nature of the offenses charged, defendant faced a minimum of 4 1/2 years in a state penitentiary before even becoming eligible for parole and up to 18 years. Pending this matter, and while out on bail, defendant was again indicted with one count of Possession of CDS (3rd Degree Felony) and Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Disorderly Persons Offense) facing another 5 1/2 years in prison. After a year of pre-trial litigation, Mr. Cifrodello was able to successfully consolidate the matters and formulate a plea whereby defendant agreed to serve 6 months at an in-patient drug rehabilitation facility in lieu of any jail.

State v. K.B. - Defendant was originally charged with one count of Robbery (2nd Degree Felony) and one count of Aggravated Assault (2nd Degree Felony) in Middlesex County and facing up to 20 years in a state penitentiary. Mr. Cifrodello successfully argued that Defendant's Due Process Rights were violated resulting in all charges being dismissed.  

State v. R.E. - Defendant was charged in Essex County with Terroristic Threats and faced five (5) years in prison. After hearings were held, Mr. Cifrodello was able to obtain a not guilty verdict for defendant and clear her of any alleged wrongdoing.   

State v. D.S. - Defendant was charged with one count of Assault for allegedly hitting another with her car intentionally causing serious bodily injury. After contesting the investigative tactics employed by the local police department and their failure to follow proper protocol, the Defendant was cleared of all alleged wrongdoing.

State v. A.W. - Defendant was charged with Simple Assault pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:12-1 for allegedly negligently causes bodily injury to another by striking them with her car. Attacking the state's evidence, Mr. Cifrodello successfully argued for the matter to be thrown out prior to trial.

State v. B.K. - Defendant was charge with assault relative to a physical altercation occurring in a liquor store. After being hired and reviewing the discovery, Mr. Cifrodello raised a number of affirmative defenses, including self defense. As a result, the charge against defendant was dismissed prior to trial.

State v. A.A. - After the filing of motions, Defendant's charge of Simple Assault (2C:12-1) was dismissed after state could not prove its case.

State v. D.M. - Defendant was charged by his neighbor with the 4th degree felony charge of Bias Intimidation (2C:16-1A). Facing 18 months in a state penitentiary and 5 years probation, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello. Once discovery was obtained, Mr. Cifrodello filed a Motion to Dismiss based on insufficient evidence and was successful in getting the charge completely dismissed.

Other

State v. W.F. - Defendant was pulled over for speeding on the Garden State Parkway. Upon being confronted by the officer, it is alleged that the defendant advised the officer that a family member was seriously hurt and that they were hurrying home for that reason. In response, the office dispatched an ambulance to the home, however, when the ambulance arrived they were advised that no one was in need of medical assistance.  Defendant was subsequently charged with making a Fictitious Report pursuant N.J.S.A. 2C:28-4(B), a 4th degree felony. Facing eighteen (18) months is a state penitentiary, $15,000 in fines, restitution and five (5) years probation, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello. Contesting the sufficiency of the state's case, as a matter of law, the defendant was found Not Guilty of the criminal charge.

State v. J.K. - Defendant was charged with Harassment pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(A) stemming from a long time dispute with a neighbor. Infuriated with these allegations, they hired Mr. Cifrodello to vindicate themselves. Contesting the allegations as written in the complaint, Mr. Cifrodello's Motion To Dismiss was granted and the charge was dismissed.

State v. R.N. - A case involving another neighborhood dispute, Defendant was charged with Harassment. Concerned about the consequences that could follow, they hired Mr. Cifrodello. Again, contesting the allegations as written in the complaint, Mr. Cifrodello's Motion To Dismiss was granted and the charge was dismissed much to the delight of the client.

State v. J.G. - Defendant was pulled over by police and charged with Underage Possession of Alcohol (2C:33-15) for having alcohol in the car. Arguments were raised with the state resulting in the dismissal of the criminal charge.

State v. A.C. - A case involving a neighborhood dispute, Defendant was charged with Harassment (2C:33-4). Challenging the state's evidence, Mr. Cifrodello was successful in getting the charge completely dismissed.

State v. B.L. - Defendant's charges for Harassment (2C:33-4) for allegedly sending sexually explicit photos via text messages dismissed after the defense's Motion to Dismiss based on insufficient evidence was granted.

DWI/DUI

State v. Y.A. - Defendant was pulled over by Hazlet police for erratic driving. After being questioned and given field sobriety tests, defendant was arrested and charge with DWI (39:4-50). After contesting the officer's roadside field sobriety test results and lab results, defendant was found Not Guilty of DWI charge.

State v. C.L. - Defendant allegedly slammed into the back of a semi-tractor resulting in his leg being broken. Paramedics and police were called to the scene. Upon arrival, police found defendant in the driver seat with serious injuries and alleged to have smelled alcohol on defendant. Subsequently, paramedics arrived, extricated defendant from the vehicle and transported him to the hospital. At the hospital, police requested that hospital personnel draw defendant's blood for investigative purposes. Defendant did not consent. The blood draw allegedly yielded a BAC of 0.24% (3x the legal limit). Defendant was charged with DWI (39:4-50). This would have constituted defendant's 2nd DWI (Mr. Cifrodello did not represent defendant on his first DWI); thus he was facing a mandatory 2 years loss of license, jail and other serious penalties. Being that, he hired Mr. Cifrodello who immediately contested the results of the blood draw as being taken in violation of defendants 4th amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. A hearing was held and it was ruled that defendant's breath test was NOT admissible as it was obtain in violation of his constitutional rights. Without those results, the state had no other evidence to prove the DWI charge against defendant, resulting in the dismissal of defendant's DWI charge.

State v. I.Z. - Defendant was involved in an accident. At the scene, police gave her a series of sobriety tests, which she allegedly failed. Subsequently, she was arrested and taken back to headquarters to give breath samples. The test allegedly yield a 0.11% BAC. She was charged with DWI (39:4-50). Defendant was previously convicted of DWI and so was facing a 2nd offense (Mr. Cifrodello did not represent defendant on her first DWI). She hired Mr. Cifrodello who, after discovery was completed, contested the officer's on-field sobriety test conclusions and the breath testing of defendant. The defense first argued that the officer failed to take into account the defendant's prior medical history, thus voiding his on-field testing conclusions. The defense then argued that the officer's administration of the breath testing of defendant was flawed in numerous requests calling into question the accuracy of the results requiring suppression. As a result, defendant was found Not Guilty of the DWI.

State v. A.G. - Defendant, a nineteen (19) year old teenager, was stopped by State Police while driving on the New Jersey Turnpike through Jersey City, New Jersey, for alleging driving in an erratic fashion. After Defendant was questioned and given road side field sobriety tests, she was arrested and taken back to police barracks to submit to breathe testing, the results of which yielded a 0.10 BAC %. Subsequently, Defendant was charged with DWI (39:4-50), Underage DWI (39:4-50.14), Improper Passing (39:4-85), Careless Driving (39:4-97), Unsafe Lane Change (39:4-88), Failure to Yield to Traffic Device (19:9-1.3) and Use of Cell Phone (39:4-97.3). Facing fifteen (15) months loss of license, ten (10) motor vehicle points, and thousands of dollars in court fines, DMV surcharges and Insurance surcharges. Facing such steep penalties, Mr. Cifrodello engaged in aggressive pre-trial discovery and motion practice, culminating in the filing of a Motion to Suppress. After a hearing was held, Defendant's top charges of DWI (39:4-50) and Underage DWI (39:4-50.14) were dismissed. Thereafter, the State's frustration resulted in the lack of a plea offer being extended to Defendant on the remaining traffic summonses. Not willing to plead his client to 10 moving points, Mr. Cifrodello set the matter down for trial. On the day of trial, the defense was prepared with all its' witnesses, when the state offered a plea the Defendant decided to accept. Defendant pled guilty to Improper Passing, received a $200 fine and the remaining charges were dismissed.

State v. Z.V. - Defendant was pulled over by Woodbridge police as a result of a "concerned citizen's" report to 911 of an erratic driver on the road. After Defendant was questioned and given road side field sobriety tests, he was arrested and charged with DUI (driving under the influence of drugs). Mr. Cifrodello filed a motion to suppress both the motor vehicle stop as well as any alleged statements or confessions the Defendant may have given at the scene or later at the station. After hearings were held, Defendant's charges were dismissed.  

State v. T.P. -  Defendant was stopped by police while driving in Linden, New Jersey, where it was alleged that he had admitted to drinking alcohol earlier that evening. Road side sobriety tests were conducted, after which Defendant was arrested for DWI. Defendant was also charged with careless driving (39:4-97), failure to keep right (39:4-82) and driving without car insurance (39:6b-2). As a result of Defense motion practice, the purported per se or 'presumptively guilty" Blood Alcohol Reading was excluded by the Court from being presented by the State at the time of trial. Ultimately, the DWI violation was dismissed. The Defendant entered into a guilty plea to careless driving (with no loss of driving privileges). Defendant paid a fine of $189 and the remaining summonses were dismissed.  

State v. L.S. - Defendant was driving his motorcycle in Sayreville, NJ, when he allegedly lost control and hit a tree. Upon arrival, police alleged that Defendant smelled like alcohol and began to question him. Defendant allegedly admitted to consuming alcohol earlier that day. Defendant was then taken to the hospital where police obtained a blood draw without Defendant's consent. Subsequently, Defendant was charged with DWI (39:4-50), reckless driving (39:4-96) and driving without insurance (39:6b-2). Mr. Cifrodello was able to successfully contest the alleged statements of Defendant in response to police questioning both at the scene and at the hospital, as well as the legality of the taking of Defendant's blood. As a result, Defendant's reckless driving ticket was amended to careless driving (39:4-97) and the remaining tickets (including the DWI) were dismissed.

State v. R.M. - Defendant was stopped by state police while driving on the Garden State Parkway in Clark, New Jersey. Subsequently, he was charged with DWI (39:4-50), Reckless Driving (39:4-96), Careless Driving (39:4-97), Failure to Use Proper Exits (39:4-90.1), Failure to Obey Traffic Device (39:4-81), Failure to Obey Officers Instructions (39:4-57), Driving Without a License (39:3-10); and as well as the criminal charges of: Possession of CDS (2C:35-10(a)), Resisting Arrest (2C:29-2) and Disorderly Conduct (2C:33-2). Facing 13 motor vehicles points, over $5000 in fines, almost 3 years loss of license and 17 months in jail, Defendant hired another law office. Not happy with the representation he was being provided, he fired his then attorney and hired Mr. Cifrodello weeks before trial. Once retained, Mr. Cifrodello filed a series of pre-trial motions, hired an expert and prepared for trial. On the day of trial, Defendant accepted a plea whereby he pled guilty to Careless Driving, Obstructing the Flow of Traffic (39:4-67 - a zero point violation) and Failure to Exhibit his License Upon Request (39:3-29). The CDS charged was diverted into a diversionary program whereby after 6 months it is to be dismissed and all other charges were dismissed including the remaining criminal offenses and the DWI. As a result, Defendant did not lose his license and received only 2 moving points.

State v. K.G. - Defendant was driving on the Turnpike when he allegedly lost control of his vehicle, hit a curb, then ran off the road and into a ditch. Upon arrival, local police found Defendant asleep in his vehicle. It was alleged that he told police he was drinking earlier that evening. Defendant was then arrested and taken to the police station where he provided a breathe sample of .08 % BAC. Defendant was subsequently charged with DWI. On the day of trial, and after Mr. Cifrodello filed numerous pre-trial motions, Defendant's breathe samples were suppressed, and thus, could not be introduced at trial against him.  At that point, the state conceded that they could not carrying its' burden and Defendant's Motion for a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty was granted.

State v. A.G. - Defendant was stopped by Matawan police. After it was alleged that police smelled alcohol on defendant's breath, he was ask to submit to field sobriety tests. Subsequently, he was arrested and charged with DWI, Reckless Driving and Careless Driving. Once hired, Mr. Cifrodello refuted the reliability of both defendant's breathe test results and roadside sobriety test results. As a result, defendant's DWI and Reckless Driving charges were dismissed. He pled guilty to Careless Driving and was given a $189 fine.

State v. R.S-S. - Defendant was stopped for speeding while traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike through Woodbridge, NJ. Subsequently, defendant was arrested and charge with DWI for allegedly being under the influence of a CDS. Once hired, Mr. Cifrodello contested the reliability and accuracy of the DRE ("Drug Recognition Expert") report and lab report. As a result, the DWI charges against defendant were dismissed.

State v. D.M-S. - Defendant was stop in the early morning while driving in East Brunswick, New Jersey. After admitting to consuming alcohol earlier in the evening, defendant was requested to submit to sobriety testing. Subsequently, defendant was taken back to the police station, required to give breath samples, and was charged with DWI. Contesting the validity of defendant's breath samples, as well as her field sobriety tests, Mr. Cifrodello successfully argued that police failed to follow proper protocol in the administration of these tests, thereby requiring their suppression. As a result, defendant was found Not Guilty of DWI charge.

State v. J.G. - Defendant was involved in an accident in the parking lot of a Home Depot. Upon arrival, police began their investigation and questioned Defendant, who allegedly stated that he was coming from a gentlemen's club where he had consumed alcohol. Defendant was then arrested and taken to the police department where he refused to give breath samples. Subsequently, Defendant was charged with DWI (39:4-50), Refusal to Submit Breath Sample (39:4-50.2), Reckless Driving (39:4-96) and Failure to Report an Accident (39:4-130). As a result, Defendant was facing 14-27 months loss of license and thousands of dollars in fines and surcharges. After extensive motion practice, and the holding of hearings, Defendant was vindicated and found Not Guilty of the DWI and Refusal charges.

State v. J.G. - Defendant was charged with his second DWI charge within a 3 week period. This time defendant was allegedly parked in the right lane of the northbound local lanes of the Garden State Parkway. Police arrived on scene and allegedly found Defendant sleeping in the driving seat of the vehicle. After further investigation, defendant was arrested and charged with DWI (39:4-50). Attacking the state's case, Mr. Cifrodello filed numerous Motions to Suppress and Dismiss both the field sobriety and breath tests given to Defendant. After hearings were held, Defendant was yet again found Not Guilty of the DWI.

State v. R.J. - Defendant allegedly hit a parked vehicle near his home one late night and left the scene. The police follow a trail of debris and motor fluid to the defendant's home. Upon knocking on the door, defendant's weife answered and welcomed the officers in. While inside, police questioned defendant on his activities and whereabouts that evening. Subsequently, defendant was arrested and taken back to headquarters, where he gave an alleged breath sample above the legal limit. Defendant was charged with DWI and DWI within a 1000 feet of a school zone. Facing 14-24 months of license suspension, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello, who immediately attacked the state's case on a multitude of fronts; calling into question defendant's alleged operation, statements given and his breath tests, resulting in his DWI related charges being dismissed.

State v. E.B. - Defendant was involved in an accident where she hit a telephone pole. Upon police arrival, defendant allegedly exhibits signs of intoxication. She was then given field battery tests and subsequently charged with DWI. After rigorous motion practice, defendant's DWI charge was dismissed.

State v. A.L. - Defendant was allegedly observed by police passed out in the driver seat of her vehicle with half her body hanging from outside the window while idling in a no parking zone at the Garden State Parkway Colonia South Service Area. After Defendant was awoken, questioned and given road side field sobriety tests, she was arrested and taken back to police barracks to submit to breathe testing, the results of which yielded a 0.27% BAC. Subsequently, Defendant was charged with DWI (39:4-50), Parking Prohibited (39-4-138) and Possession of Alcohol in Motor Vehicle (39:4-51b). Facing fifteen (12) months loss of license (LOL), 48 hours of IDRC, mandatory implementation of an ignition interlock device, and thousands of dollars in fines and penalties. Mr. Cifrodello was successful in suppressing the BAC reading from being used against Defendant at trial. Based on the remaining facts of the case, the Defendant elected to forgo her right to a trial and accept a negotiated plea to a "1st tier" DWI, with the remaining charges being dismissed.  As a result, Defendant received a 3 month LOL, no ignition interlock device and no points on her DL.

State v. P.F. - Defendant was pulled over at 3 am and subsequently arrested under suspicion of DWI. After being taken back to the station, Defendant's breath samples yielded a 0.28% BAC. Mr. Cifrodello was successful in suppressing the BAC reading from being used against Defendant at trial. Based on the remaining facts of the case, the Defendant elected to forgo her right to a trial and accept a negotiated plea to a "1st tier" DWI, with the remaining charges being dismissed.  As a result, although Defendant was originally facing a 7-12 month loss of license (LOL) on the DWI (with a mandatory implementation of an ignition interlock device, along with 2 moving points), Defendant received a 3 month LOL, no ignition interlock device and no points on her DL.

State v. C.P. -  Defendant was driving in Sayreville, NJ, where it was alleged that she had lost control of her vehicle and struck another vehicle head-on on the opposite side of traffic. Subsequently, Defendant was arrested under suspicion of driving under the influence and taken into custody. At the station, it was alleged that Defendant refused to provide breath samples to determine her blood-alcohol concentration (BAC). Subsequently, Defendant was charged with DWI (39:4-50), Refusal to Submit Breath Sample (39:4-50.2), Reckless Driving (39:4-96) and Driving Without Insurance (39:6b-2). As a result, Defendant was facing 22-45 months loss of license (LOL) (3-12 month LOL on the DWI, 7-12 month LOL on the Refusal, 12-24 month LOL on the Driving Without Insurance and up to 3 months LOL on the Reckless Driving), as well as installment of a mandatory ignition interlock device and other fines and penalties. Facing such steep penalties, Mr. Cifrodello vigorously contested the State's proofs. After successfully contesting the Refusal charge, Defendant opted to forgo her right to a trial and entered into a negotiated plea whereby she pled guilty to a "1st tier" DWI losing her license for three (3) months and all remaining charges were dismissed. Additionally, she received all minimums in fines and penalties and was not ordered to install an ignition interlock device.

Other Notable DWI Cases:

State v. G.G. - DWI (Possible 2nd Offense), Reckless Driving, Tailgating & Careless Driving - Dismissed

State v. H.W. - Refusal Charge, Driving While Suspended & Driving Without Insurance - Dismissed

State v. R.R. - Refusal Charge, Speeding & Careless Driving - Dismissed

State v. A.C. - Refusal Charge, Driving While Suspended, Unsafe Lane Change, Driving Without Insurance,                                  Expired Registration & Obstructing Traffic - Dismissed

State v. A.F. - Refusal Charge, Open Container of Alcohol in Vehicle & Consumption of Alcohol in Vehicle -                                    Dismissed

State v. J.D. - Refusal Charge, Consumption of Alcohol in Vehicle, Reckless Driving, Careless Driving &                                        Unsafe Lane Change - Dismissed

State v. J.C. - Refusal Charge, Leaving the Scene of Accident, Careless Driving, Driving Wrong Way On A One                           Way Street & Unregistered Vehicle - Dismissed

State v. F.N. - Refusal Charge - Not Guilty

State v. R.W. - Refusal Charge - Not Guilty

State v. F.D. - 0.20% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. S.M. - 0.23% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. R.P. - 0.24% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. B.R. - 0.19% Breath Test - Evidenced Suppressed

State v. C.S. - 0.13% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. N.B. - 0.18 % Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. W.Z. - 0.13% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. B.R. - 0.16% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. C.C. - 0.18% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

Stat v. C.O. - 0.17% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed. Criminal Possession of CDS (2C:35-10) and Disorderly                        Conduct (2C:33-2) - Dismissed

State v. B.P. - 0.14% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. K.S. - 0.23% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. A.M. - 0.17% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. G.H. - 0.17% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. K.K. - 0.34% Blood Test - Evidence Suppressed. School Zone DWI, Reckless Driving, Leaving the Scene                        of Accident, Careless Driving, Failure to Wear Seat Belt & Failure to Exhibit Document - Dismissed

State v. J.P. -  0.25% Blood Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. G.H. - 0.16% Breath Test - Evidenced Suppressed

State v. D.M-S - 0.12% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

State v. D.L. - 0.15% Breath Test - Evidence Suppressed

TRAFFIC OFFENSES

Speeding

State v. R.S. While driving in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Defendant was ticketed for speeding (39:4-98) 85 mph in a 55 mph zone. Being a CDL driving, defendant could not afford any moving vilations on his license. Once retained, Mr. Cifrodello vigorously defended his client. After motions were made, the speeding ticket was dismissed with no costs to defendant.

State v. G.K - While driving on the NJ Turnpike in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Defendant was stopped and charged with speeding (39:4-98) 104 mph in a 55 mph zone. Facing five (5) points, ninety (90) days loss of license and up to thirty (30) days jail, Defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello. After obtaining discovery and filing motions, Mr. Cifrodello successfully negotiated a plea whereby Defendant's pled guilty to a no point ticket. As a result, Defendant received no points, loss of license or jail.

State v. A.Z. - While driving in Old bridge, New Jersey, Defendant was stopped by local law enforcement and charged with speeding (39:4-98) 64mph in a 45 mph zone and failing to exhibit his license (39:3-29). Asserting his innocence, defendant elected to retain counsel and hired Mr. Cifrodello.  Once retained, Mr. Cifrodello requested discovery. After the exchange of discovery, Mr. Cifrodello was convinced that the state would have a difficult time carrying it's burden of proof regarding the speeding allegation. By way of a negotiated plea, the state agreed agreed to dismiss the speeding charge on the condition that the defendant plead guilty to failing to show his license.

State v. A.G. - While driving in Woodbridge, New Jersey, Defendant was ticketed for speeding (39:4-98) 99 mph in a 55 mph zone. Already on probation with the DMV, Defendant could not receive any more points on his DL without being suspend for 6 months. Once retained, Mr. Cifrodello vigorously defended his client. After motions were made, the speeding ticket was dismissed with no costs to defendant.

State v. H.J. - Defendant was one of 3 cars pulled over while in Sayreville, New Jersey. At the time of the stop, the officer cited her for speeding but failed to provide her with the correct summons. Instead, he provided her with one of the other drivers' tickets and left the scene. Mr. Cifrodello successfully argued that this violated the Defendant's right to due process and notice that dictated the dismissal of the charge. Mr. Cifrodello does not know how the other drivers' case fared.

State v. O.M. - Defendant, a provisional driver, was driving in Woodbridge, New Jersey, when he was pulled over and ticketed for speeding 75 mph in a 35 mph zone. Facing five points and ninety (90) days loss of license, he hired Mr. Cifrodello. Defenses were raised resulting in defendant getting no points on his license or suspension of driving privileges.

State v. J.M. - Defendant was driving on the Parkway when he was stopped by Clark police. Subsequently, he was cited for speeding (39:4-98) 99 mph in a 55 mph zone, careless driving (39:4-97) and unsafe lane change (39:4-88). Despite facing 9 points and up to 90 days loss of license (LOL), Mr. Cifrodello was able to bring to the Court's attention Defendant's defenses as well as all mitigating factors. As a result, Defendant pled guilty to driving 69 mph in a 55 mph zone (a 2 point offense) with the remaining summonses being dismissed, and no loss of license.  

State v. L.S. - Defendant was charged with operating his motor vehicle at a rate of 114 mph in a 65 mph zone. Facing 5 motor vehicle points, 90 days loss of license, DMV surcharges and up to 30 days in jail, Mr. Cifrodello was able to successfully negotiate a plea whereby defendant pled guilty to a zero point ticket, received no license suspension or surcharges.

State v. P.K. - Defendant was charged with Speeding in excess of 69 mph over the posted speed limit in a 35 mph zone. Mr. Cifrodello successfully negotiated a plea whereby defendant pled guilty to a zero point ticket and did not lose her license. 

State v. D.L. Defendant was charged with Speeding at a rate of 80 mph in a 35 mph zone, a five point violation, and Improper Passing (39:4-85), a four point violation. Facing nine (9) DMV points and ninety (90) days loss of license, Mr. Cifrodello successfully negotiated a plea whereby Defendant's Improper Passing charge was dismissed and his Speeding ticket was amended to a zero point ticket. As a result, Defendant paid a $383 fine, did not receive any DMV points or loss of license!

State v. P.D. - Defendant was driving on the Turnpike in Elizabeth, New Jersey when he was stopped by police and charged with Speeding 109 mph in a 65 mph zone, a five (5) point ticket that carries with it a potential ninety (90) day suspension of license, Carless Driving (39:4-97), a two (2) point ticket and failing to Exhibit License (39:3-29). After contesting the Officer's observations relative to Defendant's alleged speed, Mr. Cifrodello was successful in negotiating a plea whereby Defendants Speeding charge was amended to a zero point ticket and the remianing charges were dismissed. As a result, Defendant did not receive any DMV points or suspension of license.

State v. D.S. - Defendant was driving on the urnpike when he was pulled over and subsequently cited for speeding (39:4-98) 99 mph in a 55 mph zone and careless driving (39:4-97). Despite facing 7 points and up to 90 days loss of license (LOL), Mr. Cifrodello was able to bring to the Court's attention Defendant's defenses as well as all mitigating factors. As a result, Defendant paid a $439 fine and did not receive any DMV points or loss of license!  

Driving While Suspended (39:3-40)

State v. E.S. - Defendant was pulled over while driving in Branchburg, New Jersey and charged with Driving While Suspended (39:3-40). Facing stiff penalties, including a $500 fine, six (6) month loss of license and $1000 in DMV surcharges, she hired Mr. Cifrodello. raising a number of defenses, including DMV's failure to provide proper notice, defendant's charge was dismissed with no costs to defendant.

State v. I.R. - Defendant was charged with Driving While Suspended (39:3-40) as enhanced by a prior conviction for Driving While Intoxictetd (DWI). Facing a $1000 fine, 12-30 months additional loss of license, DMV surcharges and mandatory 10-90 days jail, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello. After several negotiations with the state, Mr. Cifrodello was able to craft a plea whereby defendant pled guilty to the amended charge of Failure to Exhibit his License (39:3-29A). As a result, defendant's total fine was $189 and he received no additional loss of license, DMV surcharges or jail.

State v. V.V. - While driving in Westfield, New Jersey, Defendant was stopped by police and charged with Driving While Suspended (39:3-40). Defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello because if convicted this would have been his third (3rd) offense. Therefore, he was facing a $1000 fine, 6 months loss of license, $750 in DMV surcharges, 9 insurance eligibility points and a mandatory minimum 10 days in jail. Through the filing of pre-trial motions contesting the validity and basis of Defendant's suspension, a plea was offered and accepted whereby Defendant pled guilty to Failing to Exhibit a Valid License Upon Request (39:3-29) and paid a fine of $139. He received no loss of license, no surcharges, no insurance points or jail!

State v. C.A. - Defendant was charged with Driving While Suspended (39:3-40) and Obstruction of Windshield (39:3-74). Contesting that State's proofs regarding adequate notice, Mr. Cifrodello was successful in getting Defendant's Driving While Suspended ticket dismissed! Although facing a $500 fine, 6 months loss of license and $750 in DMV surcharges, Defendant pled guilty to Obstruction of Windshield and received a $58 fine.

State v. Y.B.D. - Defendant was charged with Driving While Suspended (39:3-40), Driving with No Insurance (39:6b-2), Failure to Observe Signal (39:4-81) and Driving While Using Cellphone (39:4-97.3). Facing 2 1/2 years loss of license, $4000 in fines and surcharges and two (2) moving points, Mr. Cifrodello crafted a very favorable plea for defendant, whereby, she plead guilty to Obstructing Traffic (39:4-67) and Failure to Exhibit Document (39:3-29). As a result, defendant did not receive any loss of license, surcharges or MV points and her total fine was $278.

Leaving the Scene Of An Accident (39:4-129)

State v. E.C. - Defendant was alleged to have been driving his vehicle in South Brunswick , New Jersey, when a concerned citizen called police and advised that a semi-truck bearing the registration of Defendant's vehicle had just struck a parked car in a WaWa parking lot and fled the scene. Subsequently, Defendant was charged with Careless Driving and Leaving the Scene of an Accident. If convicted, defendant faced a mandatory six (6) months loss of license and two (2) DMV points. Having a CDL license, Defendant took no chances and hired the services of Mr. Cifrodello. Contesting the State's proofs, Defendant was acquitted on all charges the day of trial.

State v. M.F. Defendant was alleged to have been driving his vehicle in Union Township, New Jersey, when a concerned citizen called police and advised that a car bearing the registration of Defendant's car had just struck a parked car and fled the scene. Subsequently, Defendant was charged with Driving without Insurance (39:6B-2) and Leaving the Scene of an Accident (39:4-129). If convicted, Defendant faced a mandatory one (1) year loss of license and up to a $1000 fine for the 6B-2 charge and another mandatory six (6) months loss of license and $500 fine on the 39:4-129 charge. Contesting the State's proofs, Defendant was acquitted on all charges.

State v. C.T. - Defendant was alleged to have been in a motor vehicle accident involving personal injury, after which, he fled the scene. Subsequently, defendant was mailed tickets for Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Personal Injury (39:4-129(A)) and Failing to Report an Accident (39:4-130). Facing $6000 in court fines, a mandatory 6 months loss of license, 6 months jail and nine insurance eligibility points, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello. Putting forth an aggressive defense, Mr. Cifrodello maintained defendant's innocence throughout. Contesting the state's proofs, Mr. Cifrodello was able to successfully have all charges against defendant dismissed, with no fines or cost to defendant.

State v. J.D. - Defendant was alleged by another driver to have been involved in an accident and fled the scene, resulting in charges for Leaving the Scene of an Accident (39:4-129(B)), Failure to Report an Accident (39:4-130) and Unsafe Lane Change (39:4-88). Facing high fines, mandatory loss of license and motor vehicle points, Mr. Cifrodello contesting the proper identification of defendant. As a result, defendant was found Not Guilty on all charges.

State v. R.M. - Defendant was alleged by another driver to have been involved in an accident and fled the scene, while in Linden, New Jersey. As a result, defendant was charged with Leaving the Scene of an Accident (39:4-129(B)), Failure to Report an Accident (39:4-130) and Careless Driving (39:4-97). Facing harsh penalties, she hired Mr. Cifrodello. Once retained, Mr. Cifrodello maintained defendant's innocence throughout. Not budging, and contesting the state's evidence, defendant was cleared of all charges.

Other Traffic

State v. J.W. - Defendant was exiting the NJ Turnpike when he allegedly lost control and hit the curb. Police responded to the scene and ticketed the defendant for Careless Driving. Contesting this, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello to try the case; he was not interested in plea bargaining. Once discovery was received, Mr. Cifrodello prepared for trial. On the day of trial, with the officer present in court, the defendant's ticket was summarily dismissed.

State v. A.M. - Defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving in North Brunswick, NJ. When police arrived on scene, the other driver to the accident stated to police that while they were driving in their lane of traffic defendant sped up and forced her way into their lane. This account was different to that of defendant's, however, police issued a careless driving ticket to defendant. In fear of the collateral consequences this would have on her insurance, Defendant then hired Mr. Cifrodello to represent her. Mr. Cifrodello not only attacked the other driver's account of the accident, but also contested the police's investigation of the accident. As a result, defendant's Careless driving ticket was dismissed.

State v. D.D. - Defendant was involved in a motor vehicle accident while driving in Woodbridge, NJ. When police arrived on scene, the other driver's account of the incident was drastically different from that of the defendant's. Nonetheless, police issued a careless driving ticket to defendant. In fear of the collateral consequences this would have on her insurance, Defendant then hired Mr. Cifrodello to represent her. Attacking both the other drivers' account of the accident, as well as the police investigation of the accident, defendant's Careless driving ticket was dismissed.

State v. T.D. - Defendant was charged with Driving While Suspended as a third offense. He was facing 6 months loss of license, $1000 fine, mandatory 10 days jail and DMV surcharges. Once he hired Mr. Cifrodello, arguments were made attacking the state's notice requirement, or lack thereof, and demanded dismissal. Defendant was vindicated and his ticket was dismissed, saving him thousands of dollars in fines and penalties, mandatory jail and DL suspension.

State v. H.P. - Defendant was alleged to have been pulling out of a car wash when she lost control of her vehicle, hit a pedestrian and crashed into six (6) parked cars. Police arrived on scene and issued defendant a ticket for Careless Driving (39:4-97). Contesting this, Mr. Cifrodello successfully negotiated that the charge be dismissed.

State v. D.E. - Defendant was charged with Careless Driving arising out of an accident he was involved in in Union, New Jersey. Maintaining his innocence, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello. Once on he case, Mr. Cifrodello contested the state's version of events. As a result, defendant's careless driving ticket was dismissed.

State v. K.J. - While driving on the NJ Turnpike, Defendant was charged with Speeding, 105 mph in a 65 mph (a 5 point ticket and up to 90 days loss of license), Reckless Driving (a 5 point ticket and up to 90 days loss of license), Improper passing (a 4 point ticket), Unsafe Lane Change (a 2 point ticket), Careless Driving (a 2 point ticket), Failure to Obey a Traffic Device (a 2 point ticket) and Failure to Yield to Emergency Vehicle (a 2 point ticket and up to 15 days jail). Facing twenty (20) DMV points, six (6) months loss of license and potential jail, defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello. After contesting the State's proofs, the defense was offered a very favorable plea. Although Mr. Cifrodello advised Defendant of his chances of success at trial, Defendant elected to accept the deal. Defendant pled guilty to driving 70 mph in a 65 mph zone and all remaining charges were dismissed!

State v. A.C. - Defendant was charged with a simple Careless Driving ticket in Linden, NJ. Although the State offered a favorable plea to Defendant that would result in Defendant getting no points, Mr. Cifrodello advised Defendant to allow him to try the case. On the day of trial, Defendant's Careless Driving ticket was dismissed.

State v. J.Q. - Defendant, a CDL driver, was involved in an accident while driving in East Brunswick, New Jersey. Naturally, the defendant and the other driver's account of the accident were much different. However, the investigating officers gave more credence to the other driver's account and issued defendant a ticket for Careless Driving. Once hired, Mr. Cifrodello contested the case, and as a result, defendant's charge was dismissed.

State v. J.R. - Defendant's charge for Careless Driving (39:4-97) was summarily dismissed by the Court.

State v. S.P. - Defendant was charged with Tailgating (39:4-89), a 5 point moving violation. Mr. Cifrodello successfully negotiated a plea whereby Defendant pled guilty to a zero point violation and paid an $89 fine (including court costs).

State v. I.R. - Defendant was charged with Improper passing (39:4-85), a 4 point moving violation. Mr. Cifrodello successfully negotiated a plea whereby Defendant pled guilty to a zero point violation and paid an $89 fine 9inlcduingin court costs).

State v. K.J. Defendant was charged with Tailgating (39:4-89), a 5 point moving violation, and Reckless Driving (39:4-96), also a five point moving violation that carries with it a potential ninety (90) day suspension of license. Facing these steep penalties Defendant hired Mr. Cifrodello to represent him. Through rigorous motion practice Mr. Cifrodello successfully negotiated a plea whereby Defendant's Reckless Driving charge was amended to Obstructing Traffic (39:4-67) and the remaining charge was dismissed. As a result, Defendant paid a $89 fine to the Court and that was it. He received no points or suspension of license.

State v. M.S. - Defendant's charge of Use of a Cell Phone while operating his vehicle (39:4-97.3) was dismissed.

State v. K.C. - Defendant's charge of Use of a Cell Phone  while operating his vehicle (39:4-97.3) was dismissed.

State v. R.C. - Defendant's charge of Use of a Cell Phone  while operating his vehicle (39:4-97.3) was dismissed

State v. R.S. - Defendant's charge of Use of a Cell Phone  while operating his vehicle (39:4-97.3) was dismissed.

Get in Touch

Don’t hesitate to call us to discuss your case with our attorney.