Hit and Run Penalty Case | Resulting in a Non Prosecution

The client was traveling on a two lane state road when another vehicle suddenly merged from the first lane, causing the client to steer toward the outer edge of the second lane. 

A motorcycle traveling at a very low speed on the edge line briefly made contact with the client’s vehicle. 

Because visibility was extremely poor and the impact was minimal, the client did not recognize any collision. 

Under New York law, awareness plays an essential role in determining the applicability of a hit and run penalty, making this fact critical.

The motorcycle rider later argued that the client’s vehicle caused the impact and reported a hit and run. 

This led to police review of limited dashcam footage submitted by the rider. Once the rider’s statement mentioned leaving the scene, officers initiated an investigation under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law §600, where a hit and run penalty could apply even without major injury. 

The client then retained a New York defense attorney to prevent escalation into a misdemeanor or felony offense.

The attorney gathered complete dashcam footage, GPS records, and scene photographs, demonstrating how the road was unlit and how the motorcycle lacked visible lighting. 

This showed that the type of minimal contact could occur without driver awareness, undermining any allegation that the client intentionally fled—an essential element of any hit and run penalty.

The legal team also inspected the client’s vehicle and found no meaningful damage, while the motorcycle displayed only superficial marks. 

Such evidence supported the theory that the client was not conscious of any collision, weakening the prosecution’s ability to prove willful evasion.

The client also carried comprehensive insurance, meaning there was no rational motive to escape liability. 

Under the New York framework for determining hit and run penalty intent, the presence of full insurance coverage often contradicts claims of purposeful evasion.

Further, the road had multiple CCTV points, making intentional escape illogical. 

These facts collectively framed a narrative that the client had neither incentive nor awareness connected to any potential hit and run penalty exposure.

In New York, the hit and run penalty requires proof that the driver knew or should reasonably have known an accident occurred. 

The defense pointed out the low speed glancing nature of the contact, absence of sound, lack of visible damage, and night time conditions, all indicating the client did not meet the knowledge threshold. 

Without awareness, prosecutors cannot establish the foundation of a hit and run penalty.

The defense also emphasized that continuing to drive does not automatically constitute “flight” under the hit and run penalty framework. 

For flight to apply, prosecutors must show intentional avoidance of responsibility. 

The attorney highlighted that the client’s continued travel was consistent with normal driving behavior given that no collision was perceived.

Prosecutors concluded that the minimal contact, poor visibility, absence of damage, and lack of motive collectively meant the driver could not be held criminally liable under the hit and run penalty provisions in New York. 

Without proof of knowledge or intentional evasion, the necessary statutory elements simply were not met.

This outcome demonstrates how early legal intervention can prevent unnecessary escalation, especially when facing hit and run penalty exposure based on incomplete or misleading initial reports.