Car Accident Lawyer in Manhattan No Charges Hit and Run Case

The incident occurred during the client’s early morning commute through a busy Manhattan intersection while executing a lawful left turn. 

During the maneuver, the vehicle’s side mirror made brief contact with a pedestrian’s arm, resulting in no immediate visible damage to the vehicle and no audible impact. 

The client continued driving, genuinely unaware that any collision had occurred, only later learning that the pedestrian reported the incident and alleged intentional flight from the scene.

In New York, hit and run liability hinges not merely on physical contact, but on whether the driver knew or reasonably should have known that an accident resulting in injury had occurred.

The pedestrian’s report asserted that the driver must have known of the impact and intentionally failed to stop, exposing the client to potential misdemeanor charges, license consequences, and long term criminal record implications absent an effective defense strategy.

Although the client’s own dashboard camera was inoperable at the time of the incident, counsel identified an alternative evidentiary source: a vehicle traveling immediately ahead of the client that captured the event on its rear facing camera. 

Careful frame by frame analysis demonstrated that the pedestrian did not exhibit any visible signaling, gesturing, or pursuit behavior that would alert a reasonable driver to the occurrence of an accident. 

Traffic flow, ambient noise, and mirror contact mechanics were reconstructed to show that the impact was not perceptible from the driver’s position.

Using the video evidence and vehicle design analysis, the defense established that the client lacked any meaningful opportunity to recognize the contact at the moment it occurred. 

Under New York standards, criminal liability for leaving the scene requires proof beyond mere speculation that the driver knew or reasonably should have known of the injury. 

The evidence instead supported a conclusion of unknowing continuation of travel rather than intentional evasion.

Counsel prepared the client extensively for police interviews, ensuring that all statements accurately reflected the factual circumstances without unnecessary speculation or admissions. 

Consistency was critical, as discrepancies in early interviews are frequently cited by investigators as indicators of consciousness of guilt. 

The client’s explanation remained aligned with the objective video evidence throughout the process.

The defense emphasized that New York law does not impose strict liability for leaving the scene absent proof of awareness. 

By grounding the argument in established investigative criteria rather than emotional appeal, counsel positioned the case within a framework that allowed law enforcement to resolve the matter without formal charges while maintaining procedural integrity.

After reviewing the evidence and legal submissions, police authorities declined to file charges for hit and run causing injury, concluding that the statutory knowledge element could not be established. 

Separately, any potential bodily injury claim was addressed through the client’s valid automobile insurance coverage under New York’s no fault framework, while law enforcement independently determined that no prosecutorial action was warranted.

The investigation was formally closed with a determination not to proceed, leaving the client with no criminal record, no license suspension, and no ongoing legal exposure. 

The case illustrates how early involvement by a car accident lawyer in Manhattan can decisively alter the trajectory of a seemingly minor incident before it becomes a lasting legal problem.