Sexual Assault Settlement Defense Secures Dismissal

Defense counsel recognized early that the complainant firmly opposed any direct meeting or conversation with the client.

Consistent with New York victim rights protocols, attorneys must avoid direct contact with alleged victims unless permitted through counsel.

Accordingly, the defense lawyer initiated contact through the complainant’s legal representative, allowing discussions about a sexual assault settlement to proceed without infringing victim communication rules.

Counsel collected information on the complainant’s emotional position, expectations, and concerns.

This allowed the defense to tailor an approach that emphasized accountability, acknowledgment of discomfort caused, and a good faith intent to resolve the matter outside of litigation.

The attorney advised the client on permissible communications, risk exposure under New York Penal Law, and the importance of demonstrating remorse without implying criminal liability.

This included structured written statements, restrictions against informal outreach, and preparing documentation for negotiation.

Counsel drafted a proposed set of terms typically considered in New York non prosecution agreements involving allegations of unwanted touching. These included:

ㆍA formal written apology acknowledging the complainant’s discomfort.

ㆍA monetary component structured as civil compensation for emotional distress.

ㆍA no contact commitment enforceable through civil agreement.

ㆍA written affirmation of behavioral counseling completed or to be completed.

The attorney ensured all terms complied with New York ethics rules concerning settlement of allegations involving potential criminal conduct.

Throughout discussions, the defense attorney maintained communication exclusively with the complainant’s lawyer.

This method complied with professional conduct regulations and ensured all negotiation steps were documented.

The complainant ultimately reviewed the proposed settlement terms, offered revisions through counsel, and agreed to move forward with a written agreement that satisfied both parties' interests.

The agreement included:

ㆍA detailed narrative describing the intention to resolve the matter privately.

ㆍConfirmation that the complainant did not wish to pursue criminal penalties.

ㆍProvisions acknowledging voluntary entry into the settlement.

ㆍMutual releases addressing civil claims arising from the event.

The agreement also reiterated that no term restricted the lawful authority of the District Attorney’s Office.

Following execution of the settlement, the complainant’s attorney provided a written statement commonly referred to as a “declination letter” or “statement of non cooperation” confirming that the complainant did not desire prosecution.

This document was submitted to the prosecution office along with proof of settlement performance by the client.

Several factors contributed to the favorable resolution:

ㆍLack of physical injury or evidence of forcible restraint.

ㆍContext involving mutual social interaction at a workplace event.

ㆍThe client’s willingness to acknowledge discomfort caused and engage in corrective measures.

ㆍThe complainant’s explicit preference to avoid criminal proceedings.

In New York, prosecutors routinely consider victim input while retaining complete discretion, making attorney guided settlement strategies highly effective in appropriate cases.

The case demonstrates that attempts to contact a complainant directly or negotiate informally can lead to additional legal exposure, including allegations of intimidation or witness tampering.

A defense attorney ensures compliance with ethical and procedural rules while maximizing the likelihood of a non criminal outcome.