Personal Injury Law Firm: Sti Transmission False Accusation

New York courts generally examine whether a person knowingly exposed another to a medically recognized risk. 

If a partner has completed treatment and obtained a negative test result, New York law does not consider them a continuing risk requiring further warning.
 

Our personal injury law firm analysis emphasized:

• The client’s documented negative test results prior to the relationship
• Clear, time-stamped disclosure messages showing honest communication
• The complainant’s voluntary choice to engage in unprotected intercourse
   

Together, these demonstrated full compliance with any reasonable duty of care.

The prosecution’s initial theory depended on the assumption that the client intentionally hid his medical history. 

However, we produced archived digital communication proving:

• The client fully disclosed past STI treatment
• Disclosure occurred before sexual activity
• The complainant expressly consented with full knowledge
   

This eliminated the central allegation of deception.

New York courts require more than temporal proximity; they require medical causation. 

Because the client had conclusively tested negative and no overlap existed between the infections, imputing liability to the client would contradict medical evidence.

We presented a timeline showing 1)Date of completed treatment, 2)Negative lab findings , 3)Onset of the complainant’s symptoms inconsistent with exposure from the client

We assembled:

• All medical records from both parties
• Digital messages demonstrating disclosure
• Expert commentary on infection windows
   

This allowed us to construct a fact-driven defense reflecting the scientific limitations of STI attribution.

Mens rea(guilty mind, intent) is critical in any injury-based criminal allegation. 

We showed the client exercised greater-than-ordinary care: routine testing, treatment compliance, and proactive transparency.

Such conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with intent or recklessness under New York law.

After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded the prosecution could not establish intent, reckless exposure, or causation. 

The judge dismissed the assault allegations in full.
 

This result confirms that New York courts require robust medical and factual proof before imposing criminal liability for infection-related injuries.