Offices Are Closed on Thursday, 6/19/25
Flink Maswick Law • June 18, 2025
In recognition of Juneteenth, our offices will be closed on Thursday, June 19, 2025. Our offices will reopen for normal business on Friday, June 20, 2025 at 8:30am.

The attorneys of Flink Maswick Law PLLC were pleased to host Jill Reynolds, a rising third-year law student at Vermont Law School, this past week. Jill had the opportunity to attend both criminal and civil-based proceedings in a variety of courts, conduct legal research to support Flink Maswick attorneys in some litigated matters, attend client meetings, and sit in and participate on strategy phone calls with clients as well. Jill spent the majority of time with both attorneys Molly S. Hann and James L. Maswick this past week and also met with attorney Edward B. Flink. We greatly enjoyed having Jill and wish them an excellent upcoming third year at Vermont Law! Flink Maswick Law participated in the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department's Rural Pathways Program, which is designed to place law students in rural counties during the summer break from school. The program allows students to observe rural law practice, as well as gain hands-on experience in different areas of law in rural settings. One of the goals of the program is to educate law students about opportunities for law students in legal practice in less populated areas.

James L. Maswick, an attorney with Flink Maswick Law PLLC, recently was victorious in a New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Refusal Hearing on behalf of a client. Refusal Hearings typically occur when a motorist is arrested and alleged to have been operating their motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and allegedly refuses to provide a chemical test to the police upon proper request. This chemical test can take the form of a breath test, urine test, blood test, and/or a saliva test. In this situation, the client was alleged to have been operating a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition and allegedly failed to provide a chemical test upon request of the arresting officers. However, Maswick and the client were successful, after three separate refusal hearing sessions, in eliciting testimony on cross-examination from one of the arresting officers, which indicated that the allegations made in the notifications filed with the Department of Motor Vehicles were inaccurate and impossible in light of the arresting officer's own testimony. Upon the start of the third DMV Refusal Hearing session on this matter, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the case on the motion Mr. Maswick and his client made seeking dismissal of the matter, granting their motion. If you find yourself in a similar situation, please do not hesitate to contact our firm at (518) 523-2441.








