.
Feedback

Report: Driver in DWI Crash Pleads Not Guilty, More Charges Coming

Michael Grasing of Babylon plead not guilty to charges of driving while intoxicated in court yesterday, Newsday reports.

Michael Grasing, the Babylon man accused of driving drunk with a blood-alcohol content level of .3 and crashing into Lindenhurst teen Brittney Walsh, pleaded not guilty to charges of DWI at his arraignment on Wednesday afternoon.

Newsday reports Grasing pleaded not guilty to his only current charge - driving while intoxicated - at First District Court in Central Islip on Wednesday afternoon.

Judge Patricia Filiberto set the bail for Grasing at $100,000 cash or $200,000 bond during the arraignment - an amount his lawyer disputed because the only charge so far was drunk driving.

Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota said that Grasing had down Montauk Highway between 85 and 100 miles per hour with a BAC of .3, nearly four times the legal limit, on Sunday evening.

Grasing's driven by Walsh, flipping her car and killing her.

Assistant District Attorney Laura Newcomb told Newsday upgraded charges should be expected to be filed as soon as new evidence is found and presented.

Newsday also reported Grasing had previously been charged with DWI in Albany County, New York in 1999 and had pled guilty to charges of driving while impaired.

Newcomb told Newsday Grasing had been in and out of rehab and would disppear for days at a time. His lawyer, William Keahon, disputed that idea, noting Grasing had been working as a contractor for the past 10 years with his father.

 

Read more:

  •  
  • 
  •  
  •  

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Babylon Village Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Adam Crowley May 15, 2013 at 06:53 pm
As I explained, my post was made on behalf of another village resident. However, I did take theRead More time to read the statute and do have an independent viewpoint on this subject. While I do not feel that all dogs require a muzzle at all times, if you have a dog that you know to be a threat to other dogs or humans, you would have a duty to take measures to eliminate that threat before bring that dog into public. If that measure is a muzzle, then that's what must be done. As my post indicated, I believe strict enforcement would be exceedingly difficult and, perhaps, unnecessary (at least with respect to the muzzle requirement). However, a total lack of enforcement is dangerous and unacceptable. I think a little common sense goes a long way and I have confidence that those charged with enforcing the Village code could do so selectively. I understand that selective enforcement may be a concept that many feel uncomfortable with. However, just because the law requires a muzzle, that is hardly a reason to disregard it in its entirety and allow dogs with vicious propensities to roam around unleashed. I will leave it up to Village lawmakers to remove the muzzle requirement (and suggest that they do so) if that is what it would take to make people comfortable with the leash requirement.
Concerned Citizen May 15, 2013 at 05:37 pm
Did you read the law? unless it be properly muzzled and effectively restrained by a chain or leashRead More I'll bet neither dog was muzzled Do you really want them to enforce this law