Negligent Injury Case | Defense Attorney Secures Full Dismissal Through Strategic Evidence

The defendant had been visiting a friend at a hospital and exited through the main lobby at a normal walking pace. 

At the same moment, an elderly patient approaching from the opposite direction suddenly lost balance and fell backward. Hospital staff later noted that the patient required several weeks of treatment. 

The complainant asserted that the defendant had made contact, despite no eyewitness confirming this and despite the defendant’s immediate denial. 

Because New York requires proof of a clear causal link for negligent injury type offenses, establishing what actually occurred became the crucial first step.

In New York, prosecutors must show that:

· The defendant breached a duty of reasonable care.

· The alleged breach directly caused the injury.

· The injury was a foreseeable result of the conduct.

In this case, the defense identified several issues:

· No physical contact was observed.

· The defendant altered direction to avoid the complainant.

· The complainant had medical conditions affecting balance.

· Injury causation could not be attributed to the defendant without speculation.

These issues formed the foundation of the defense strategy.

The attorney obtained hospital lobby CCTV footage, which became the central piece of evidence. 

The video showed:

· The defendant noticing the approaching patient.

· The defendant stepping aside to avoid contact.

· No physical impact between the two individuals.

This contradicted the complainant’s later statement and clearly demonstrated that the defendant exercised reasonable care.

To reinforce the objective findings, the defense attorney consulted an independent forensic expert. 

The review supported the conclusion that:

· The complainant’s fall was consistent with age related instability.

· No external force, push, or collision caused the fall.

· The event was medically explainable without attributing blame to the defendant.

This expert analysis directly weakened the prosecution’s theory and helped establish that negligent injury could not be substantiated under New York law.

In court, the attorney highlighted several factors:

The defendant walked at a moderate, safe pace.

Upon seeing the patient, the defendant shifted direction to avoid proximity.

No aggressive, careless, or unsafe conduct occurred.

These facts established that even under the broad definition of negligent injury, the defendant’s behavior could not meet the threshold of culpable negligence.

The prosecutor relied primarily on the complainant’s recollection. 

The defense pointed out inconsistencies between the patient’s statements, the video footage, and medical evidence. 

By demonstrating that the fall likely resulted from an internal medical condition rather than the defendant’s conduct, the attorney successfully argued that the prosecution lacked the causal proof required to sustain the charge.

The dismissal affirmed several important principles in negligent injury cases:

Objective evidence outweighs unverified assumptions.

Causation must be proven, not presumed.

Reasonable conduct by the defendant eliminates criminal liability.

This case highlights the importance of early evidence preservation and strategic legal defense led by an experienced criminal defense attorney in New York.