Car Accident Attorney Manhattan Secures Non Prosecution

The client was driving home after work on a rainy evening in Manhattan, navigating dense traffic conditions on a multi lane arterial roadway. 

While attempting a lane change at reduced speed, the client failed to fully account for a vehicle approaching from the rear, resulting in a low impact collision with a car proceeding straight. 

Emergency services responded to the scene, and the other driver reported neck discomfort and was transported to a local hospital, where a short term cervical strain diagnosis requiring approximately two weeks of conservative treatment was issued.

Although no field sobriety testing or chemical breath analysis was conducted at the scene, the situation escalated when the other driver persistently questioned the client about alcohol consumption. 

Under stress and confusion, the client referenced having consumed alcohol socially the previous evening, a statement that was later mischaracterized as an admission of intoxication at the time of driving. 

This interaction became central to the subsequent criminal complaint, despite the absence of objective intoxication evidence.

After initial insurance discussions stalled, the complainant filed a criminal report asserting that the collision was alcohol related and caused bodily injury. 

Medical documentation reflected only minor soft tissue injury, insufficient to constitute serious physical injury under New York Penal Law, yet the allegation nonetheless exposed the client to potential misdemeanor prosecution.

In parallel with the criminal complaint, the complainant sent repeated messages demanding excessive monetary compensation beyond insurance coverage, referencing the alleged admission of drinking.

These communications raised concerns regarding the credibility and motive of the accusation, particularly where criminal allegations appeared to be leveraged for financial gain.

Counsel emphasized that New York DUI prosecutions require proof of intoxication at the time of operation, typically established through chemical testing, standardized field sobriety tests, or contemporaneous officer observations. 

In this case, no such evidence existed, and the client’s statement was demonstrably ambiguous and temporally disconnected from the incident.

The defense further demonstrated that the alleged injuries did not meet the statutory criteria necessary to sustain a vehicular assault charge or any other injury based criminal offense under New York law.

By presenting medical records, accident reconstruction context, and the complainant’s coercive communications, counsel reframed the matter as a civil insurance dispute rather than a criminal offense.

The prosecuting authority determined that the vehicular injury allegation lacked the elements required for criminal prosecution and that the DUI claim was unsupported by admissible evidence. 

As a result, the case was closed with a determination of no criminal charges, allowing the client to avoid arrest, court proceedings, and long term record consequences.