CENTRAL ISLIP, NY — A man left Central Islip Criminal Court on Tuesday with his driver’s license revoked after refusing a chemical test during a drug-related arrest more than a month ago.
Under New York law, that single decision carries automatic consequences. Refusing a chemical test—such as a blood or urine sample—triggers a mandatory license suspension of at least one year, regardless of whether the person is ultimately convicted.
That’s now the reality facing the accused, who says he has been clean for three years—aside from the arrest, during which he tested positive for methadone and fentanyl. His attorney, Stephanie Persaud of the Suffolk County Legal Aid Society, said he has been engaged in addiction treatment for several weeks. Persaud entered a not guilty plea on his behalf to two misdemeanor charges: criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree and operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs.
But the main focus in court wasn’t the charges—it was the confusion surrounding the refusal of the chemical test. The accused told the judge he didn’t fully understand the consequences at the time. “Had I understood the consequences,” he said, “I never would have refused.”
Judge John Lozzo referred to the refusal paperwork the defendant had signed, which includes a required set of questions designed to confirm that individuals understand the legal consequences. “I know you may have been nervous,” the judge said, “but you were walked through the paperwork.”
Persaud told the court that she had also explained the implications of the refusal prior to her client’s court appearance. Still, the accused maintained he had not grasped the seriousness of his decision at the time of his arrest. He argued that if officers had obtained a blood warrant—a court order allowing law enforcement to draw blood without consent—his refusal would have been irrelevant. But under New York law, refusal is treated as a separate administrative violation and triggers penalties regardless of whether a warrant is pursued.
Assistant District Attorney Christine Occhiogrosso reportedly floated a potential plea deal involving six years of probation and continued treatment. The court has not yet accepted any agreement.
In the meantime, the license suspension could jeopardize the accused’s recovery. Without the ability to drive, he may struggle to attend treatment appointments or fulfill court obligations. Legal experts have long warned that license suspensions disproportionately affect low-income individuals and communities of color—many of whom rely on driving not just for employment, but to access addiction services, medical care, and other critical support systems.
