Criminal Law Firm New York | Hit and Run Injury No Referral

The client was operating a vehicle on a one way street when the vehicle made incidental contact with a pedestrian’s elbow during low speed maneuvering.

The client did not perceive physical contact at the time and proceeded home without awareness of any injury.

Subsequently, law enforcement initiated an investigation alleging hit and run injury based on later statements by the pedestrian, exposing the client to possible criminal liability and administrative penalties.

Because the client relied on a valid driver’s license for employment related driving duties, the investigation posed immediate professional and economic risk.

During initial questioning, the client attempted to explain the incident factually but was subjected to prolonged and repetitive interrogation designed to elicit admission of wrongdoing.

Under psychological pressure and influenced by concern stemming from a prior unrelated driving offense, the client temporarily conceded responsibility despite lacking actual awareness of injury at the time of the incident.

Defense counsel documented the interview conditions and clarified that any such admission did not accurately reflect the client’s mental state or factual knowledge at the moment of the alleged accident.

This clarification was critical to reframing the investigation under New York standards requiring conscious awareness for hit and run liability.

The defense emphasized that the client was not impaired, unlicensed, uninsured, or otherwise motivated to evade law enforcement.

There was no attempt to conceal identity, alter the vehicle, or avoid later contact with authorities.

These facts supported the position that leaving the location was not an intentional act of evasion but the result of a genuine lack of awareness that any injury had occurred.

Under New York enforcement principles, hit and run injury requires proof that a driver knew or reasonably should have known that a person was injured and deliberately failed to remain at the scene.

The defense demonstrated that minor physical contact at low speed, without visible reaction or immediate complaint, did not reasonably alert the client to any injury.

Without credible evidence establishing conscious awareness at the time of departure, the essential mental element for criminal liability was not satisfied.

This analysis played a decisive role in preventing referral of the case for prosecution.

The client maintained active automobile liability insurance and separate driver coverage at the time of the incident.

Proof of coverage was submitted to confirm the client’s ability and willingness to address any civil compensation if necessary.

The presence of valid insurance further undermined any inference of intentional flight or avoidance of responsibility.

After reviewing the totality of evidence, law enforcement determined that the elements required for hit and run injury were not met and closed the case without referral.

A no referral outcome means the case was terminated at the police level without submission to the prosecutor, effectively ending criminal exposure.

As a result, the client avoided criminal charges, preserved driving privileges, and maintained employment without interruption.

This case illustrates how early intervention by a criminal law firm New York can decisively influence outcomes in traffic related criminal investigations.