New York Car Accident Lawyer

In New York, car accidents are unfortunately common. According to statistics published by TRIP.org, in 2023, the number of traffic-related fatalities in New York reached 1,472, marking an increase of 15% compared to five years prior. The state's total economic loss due to fatal and serious crashes was estimated at $135.4 billion, which includes both direct financial costs and the societal costs related to loss of life and long-term injuries.

Most car accidents are caused by negligence and are entirely preventable. Drivers who are careless or fail to follow traffic laws put everyone at risk on the road. Whether it's distracted driving, speeding, or driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, negligence is a leading cause of traffic collisions. Under New York law, those whose negligent actions cause accidents can be held liable for the damages and injuries resulting from the crash. Victims of car accidents may pursue compensation through personal injury lawsuits to cover medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other financial losses. Knowing your rights and understanding the steps you should take after an accident is crucial.

Consulting with an experienced New York car accident lawyer can help you navigate the complex legal process, protect your rights, and ensure that you receive the maximum compensation to which you are entitled.

Under New York law, whether you can sue for damages in a personal injury claim depends on the severity of your injuries.

Qualification to Sue. New York’s “serious injury” threshold, defined by N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d), sets the minimum requirement to sue for injuries after a car accident. Examples of “serious injury” include fractures, loss of a fetus, significant disfigurement, and permanent loss or use of a body organ, member, function, or system. While no-fault covers basic expenses through Personal Injury Protection (PIP), you must show a serious injury to pursue damages beyond no-fault. Meeting this qualification can be complex, as insurance carriers often contest severity and causation. An experienced New York car accident lawyer can help gather critical evidence, including detailed medical documentation, expert opinions, and lost wages, to satisfy the threshold and seek full compensation for your injuries once you exceed basic PIP coverage.

In Licari v. Elliott, the New York Court of Appeals examined whether the plaintiff’s injuries met the statutory definition of "serious injury" under the state's No-Fault Insurance Law. The case reinforced that the serious injury threshold was designed to limit lawsuits to significant injuries and prevent minor claims from proceeding to litigation.

On February 13, 1979, the plaintiff was injured in a car accident. He was diagnosed with a concussion, cervical sprain, lumbar sprain, and a chest contusion. The plaintiff returned to work as a taxi driver 24 days after the accident, working 12-hour shifts. He claimed that he occasionally had trouble lifting luggage and doing household chores. He also reported occasional headaches and dizziness, which were relieved by aspirin. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit to recover damages for his injuries.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff met the legal definition of "serious injury" under the No-Fault Law. Specifically, the case focused on whether the plaintiff sustained:

• A "significant limitation of use of a body function or system."
• A "medically determined injury or impairment" that prevented him from performing his daily activities for at least 90 days within the 180 days following the accident.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision dismissing the plaintiff’s case, holding that he failed to meet the serious injury threshold.

New York’s No-Fault Law was enacted to reduce minor personal injury claims in court. Initially, the threshold allowed claims where medical expenses exceeded $500, but this was repealed because it was too easy to meet. The law was revised to define serious injury through specific categories, including fractures, disfigurement, permanent loss of function, and substantial activity limitations.

The Licari v. Elliott court ruled that the plaintiff’s injuries did not qualify. His mild movement restrictions did not constitute a "significant limitation" of a body function. He resumed full-time work 24 days after the accident, making him ineligible under the "90/180-day rule." The court found his occasional headaches and dizziness complaints insufficient, as they did not prevent him from performing most of his daily activities. Licari v. Elliott reinforced that plaintiffs must prove their injuries are substantial to recover non-economic damages.

Soft-Tissue – The 90/180-Day Rule. While broken bones and other “hard-tissue” injuries are common, in car accidents, soft-tissue injuries are also common. Soft-tissue injuries often involve sprains or strains of muscles, ligaments, and tendons in the cervical or lumbosacral regions, as well as herniated or bulging discs, which can disrupt the normal mechanics of the affected area. However, unlike other types of injuries, soft-tissue injuries can be difficult to diagnose objectively and are more prone to disputes over severity. As a result, when it comes to a claim of a serious injury based on a soft-tissue injury in a car accident, under New York Insurance Law § 5102(d), a soft-tissue injury must meet the “serious injury” threshold under the 90/180-day rule to qualify for damages beyond basic no-fault benefits.

For example, if you're employed, this may include your ability to perform your job duties, attend work, or meet deadlines. As far as household chores, this may include being unable to cook, clean, grocery shop, do laundry, and do yard work. Examples related to personal care include activities like bathing, dressing, grooming, and using the restroom. Leisure activities examples include hobbies, sports, social activities, and spending time with family and friends.

Because soft-tissue damage often lacks visible evidence, insurers may dispute these claims. Proper documentation—such as consistent physician reports, physical therapy records, and diagnostic imaging—can demonstrate the severity of your condition and clearly outline the limitations imposed by your injuries and how they prevent you from engaging in your usual daily activities. If you meet the “90/180-day” criteria, you could pursue compensation for pain, suffering, and other non-economic losses.

In the landmark case of Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 774 N.E.2d 1197 (N.Y. 2002), the New York Court of Appeals clarified what a plaintiff must show in order to sustain a claim of a serious injury based on a soft-tissue injury. Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., is a combined decision related to 3 cases. In Toure v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., Manzano v. O’Neil, and Nitti v. Clerrico, the New York Court of Appeals clarified the “serious injury” threshold set forth in Insurance Law § 5102(d). Specifically, the Court explained that plaintiffs may satisfy the statutory requirement by offering either:

• A quantitative (numeric) measure of lost range of motion; or
• A qualitative assessment, provided it is objectively based and compares the plaintiff’s physical limitations to normal function.

The Court stressed that subjective complaints alone are insufficient, but objective tests (e.g., MRIs, CT scans) and a physician’s observations of muscle spasms or functional restrictions can demonstrate a “significant” or “consequential” limitation. In Toure and Manzano, the plaintiffs met this standard through medical evidence tying bulging or herniated discs to specific functional impairments; by contrast, Nitti did not present sufficient objective proof of a qualifying limitation.

In addition, if a plaintiff claims a permanent consequential limitation of use, the Court made clear that the plaintiff must demonstrate that the injury’s effects are truly permanent. Without evidence of ongoing limitations tied to objective medical testing—such as MRIs, CT scans, or observable muscle spasms—claims may fail to establish a serious injury. Ultimately, both the duration and degree of limitation are central to whether an injury qualifies.

IME and Potential Loss of No-Fault Benefits. Under 11 NYCRR § 65-3.5, your no-fault insurer can require an Independent Medical Examination (IME) to assess ongoing treatment. Insurers request IMEs to verify that a claimant’s injuries are legitimate and align with the severity claimed. By independently evaluating the victim’s condition, they seek to reduce fraud, minimize payouts, and ensure treatments remain necessary before continuing or ending coverage.

Failing to attend or receiving an unfavorable IME report may cause your insurer to terminate or reduce no-fault benefits, including payments for medical bills and lost earnings. Although labeled “independent,” the examining doctor is typically chosen by the insurer, potentially leading to biased findings. Consulting an experienced New York car accident lawyer can help you prepare for the IME, ensuring accurate documentation of your injuries and challenging unreasonable denials. By actively defending your right to continued coverage, you can avoid burdensome out-of-pocket costs during recovery.

Common Types of Injuries. Car accidents in New York often lead to a variety of injuries, ranging from minor to life-altering. Common examples include whiplash, concussions, broken bones, herniated discs, and traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), rear-end and side-impact collisions frequently cause neck and back trauma, while head-on crashes can result in severe head, chest, or abdominal injuries. Even low-speed accidents may cause soft-tissue damage requiring rehabilitation. Prompt medical evaluation, detailed documentation, and ongoing treatment are crucial for your health and any future claim. Proper evidence links the accident to your injuries, strengthening your case.

If you meet the serious injury threshold and file a personal injury lawsuit, you may be able to seek compensation for:

• Medical Expenses: Current and future treatments, rehabilitation, medications, and therapy.
• Lost Wages: For time missed at work, as well as diminished earning capacity if you cannot return to the same job.
• Pain and Suffering: Compensation for the physical and emotional toll, including loss of enjoyment of life and emotional distress.
• Property Damage: Costs to repair or replace your vehicle and any other damaged property.
• Loss of Consortium: If you are married, you may be able to file a claim for loss of consortium. This type of claim allows a spouse to seek compensation for the loss of companionship, affection, sexual relations, and other aspects of their marital relationship resulting from their partner's injuries.
• Wrongful Death: If you lose a loved one in a car accident, eligible family members may seek damages for medical bills, funeral expenses, and the loss of financial and emotional support.
• Impact of Comparative Negligence. New York follows a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that if you share some responsibility for the accident, your compensation will be reduced by the percentage of your fault but not eliminated entirely. For example, if you are found to be 20% at fault, you can still recover 80% of the total damages.

  For example, in Clark v. State, 124 A.D.2d 879 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986), on September 25, 1981, the plaintiff was involved in a single-vehicle accident on State Route 41 in Cortland County. While navigating a curve, her vehicle left the highway, traveled 200 feet, and crashed into a guardrail. Upon impact, the end piece of the guardrail broke, and a metal rail impaled the vehicle, causing severe injuries to the lower half of her body.

  The plaintiff alleged that poor road markings caused her to veer off the road. However, the State of New York argued that alcohol impairment was the real reason for the crash. Evidence presented at trial showed that the plaintiff had been drinking at multiple bars before driving and had a blood alcohol level of .14% at the time of the accident. Witnesses also testified that she appeared intoxicated before getting into her vehicle.

  The court ultimately ruled that the State was negligent because the guardrail was improperly constructed. The plaintiff argued that if the guardrail had been properly maintained, her injuries would have been minor. Despite finding the plaintiff negligent for driving under the influence, the Court of Claims held the State 100% liable for her injuries and awarded her $522,318.35 in damages.

  The State appealed, arguing that the damage award should have been reduced based on the plaintiff’s comparative fault under New York’s comparative negligence law (CPLR 1411).

  The Appellate Division modified the lower court’s ruling by reducing the plaintiff’s damages based on her comparative fault.

  • The court agreed that the State was negligent in maintaining the guardrail.
  • However, it ruled that the plaintiff’s own actions contributed to the accident.
  • The court apportioned liability as 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the State.
  • As a result, the damages were reduced from $522,318.35 to $208,927.34.

  The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the State’s negligence was the sole cause of her injuries. It held that without the plaintiff’s negligence, she would not have been in a position to be harmed by the defective guardrail.

While the driver who caused the accident is typically the most obvious party to hold liable, car accident liability can be much more complex. Depending on the specific facts, other individuals or entities may also bear responsibility, including:

Driver of the Other Vehicle. A negligent or reckless driver can be held liable for causing your car accident under New York’s general negligence principles. If the other driver was speeding, distracted (such as texting), intoxicated, or otherwise failing to uphold a reasonable standard of care, you may bring a lawsuit against them to recover damages for medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering. In such cases, you must prove that the driver owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused your injuries. New York’s pure comparative negligence rule (CPLR § 1411) also applies, meaning your compensation can be reduced but not eliminated if you share some fault. Consulting an experienced New York car accident lawyer can help establish the other driver’s negligence and protect your right to fair compensation.

Owner of the Other Vehicle. Even if the owner was not the one driving, New York law imposes vicarious liability on the vehicle’s owner for the negligent acts of any permissive driver. VTL § 388 recognizes that the vehicle owner, who grants permission to drive, can be held financially responsible for injuries caused by that driver’s negligence. For example, if the owner negligently entrusted the vehicle to an unlicensed or impaired driver, that can strengthen a liability claim. It is essential to gather evidence, such as registration documents and insurance policies, to prove ownership and permission. Pursuing a claim against both the driver and owner can increase your chances of securing adequate compensation for your injuries.

Employer of the Driver. When a driver causes an accident while acting within the scope of their employment, the employer may be held liable under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior. This principle holds employers responsible for their employees’ negligent acts if those acts occur during job-related tasks, such as making deliveries or transporting passengers. For instance, if a commercial truck driver rear-ends your car while delivering goods, the trucking company could face liability for your injuries. Documenting the employment relationship and proving the driver was on duty at the time of the collision is critical to a successful claim. By naming the employer as a defendant, you may gain access to more substantial insurance coverage for your damages.

Bar or Restaurant Owner (Dram Shop Liability). New York’s Dram Shop Act (N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 11-101) allows you to sue bars, restaurants, or other establishments that served alcohol to an intoxicated person who then caused a car accident. To prevail, you must show the establishment illegally or negligently provided alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron and that this patron’s intoxication led to your injuries. Evidence often includes eyewitness testimonies, receipts, surveillance footage, or blood alcohol concentration results.

In Adamy v. Ziriakus, 92 N.Y.2d 396 (N.Y. 1998), the New York Court of Appeals clarified that liability for a car accident can extend beyond the at-fault driver to include businesses such as bars and restaurants under the state’s Dram Shop Act. The case involved a fatal drunk driving accident and examined whether the bar unlawfully served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron, contributing to the crash. The court’s decision reinforced the idea that multiple parties can be held responsible if their actions or omissions helped cause an accident.

On January 27, 1990, Lieutenant Joseph Adamy of the Town of Amherst Police Department died in a collision with a pickup truck driven by Mark Ziriakus. Earlier that night, Ziriakus had been drinking at T.G.I. Friday’s, where he consumed multiple alcoholic beverages. After leaving the bar, he failed sobriety tests and was arrested. He was later convicted of driving while intoxicated and failure to yield.

Adamy’s widow filed a lawsuit against both Ziriakus and T.G.I. Friday’s, alleging that the bar violated the Dram Shop Act by serving alcohol to Ziriakus while he was visibly intoxicated. The jury found Ziriakus 40% liable, T.G.I. Friday’s 30% liable, and Adamy 30% liable, ultimately awarding the plaintiff over $5.5 million in damages. When the defendants appealed, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s verdict, ruling that there was enough circumstantial evidence to show that Ziriakus was visibly intoxicated when T.G.I. Friday’s served him alcohol.

The defense argued there were no eyewitness accounts of Ziriakus appearing intoxicated at the bar. However, the court ruled that direct testimony is not required if a jury can reasonably infer visible intoxication from other evidence, such as the amount of alcohol consumed and expert testimony regarding typical signs of impairment.

By affirming the jury’s decision, Adamy v. Ziriakus demonstrates how a business can be held responsible for an intoxicated patron’s actions, thus expanding potential liability beyond the drunk driver and reinforcing the importance of preventing over-service. This case also clarified that circumstantial evidence—including bar tabs and expert analysis of blood alcohol levels—can suffice to prove visible intoxication under the Dram Shop Act.

Municipality. If your accident involved a government-owned vehicle—such as a city bus, police car, or other municipal vehicle—you may sue the responsible government entity, provided you follow strict procedural rules. Under New York General Municipal Law § 50-e, you typically must file a Notice of Claim within 90 days of the accident. Failure to meet this deadline will jeopardize your right to sue. Furthermore, New York General Municipal Law § 50-i generally requires commencing the lawsuit within one year and 90 days of the incident, after timely filing the Notice of Claim. Government agencies often have unique liability standards and defenses not available to private defendants, making a thorough investigation of negligence—such as inadequate maintenance or breaching traffic rules—crucial. A knowledgeable New York car accident lawyer can guide you through the complex claims process and help ensure you meet all deadlines.

In Fitzgerald v. Lyons, 39 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 1972), the New York Court of Appeals addressed the issue of municipal liability and the requirement to file a timely notice of claim. The plaintiff alleged that on June 17, 1968, while driving on the Buffalo Skyway, a city employee struck his vehicle, causing injuries. The defendant, a City of Buffalo engineer, operated a city-owned vehicle at the time of the accident. The plaintiff filed a timely notice of claim with the City of Buffalo, asserting that the accident involved a city employee driving a city vehicle. However, the plaintiff did not name the city as a party and instead filed suit against the individual employee on May 1, 1971—more than one year and 90 days after the accident.

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lawsuit was untimely under General Municipal Law § 50-i, which requires claims against municipal employees acting within the scope of their employment to be filed within one year and 90 days. The plaintiff opposed the motion, asserting that the defendant was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. It held that the defendant was acting within the scope of his employment when the accident occurred, meaning the plaintiff was required to comply with the shorter statute of limitations. Because the lawsuit was filed after the statutory period, it was time-barred.

Typically, an employee commuting to or from work is not considered to be acting within the scope of employment. However, an exception exists when the employer derives a benefit from the employee’s use of a vehicle for work-related purposes. The court found that the defendant’s use of the city vehicle met this standard because he was required to be on call and the city permitted him to use the vehicle for commuting.

The court’s ruling reinforced the strict procedural requirements for suing a municipality or its employees. It confirmed that when a municipal employee acts within the scope of employment, claims against them are subject to the same notice and timing requirements as claims against the municipality itself. The decision also clarified that an employer’s interest in an employee’s vehicle use can extend liability for work-related incidents.

Car or Auto Part Manufacturer (Product Liability). If a defective vehicle component—such as faulty brakes, airbags, or tires—caused or worsened your injuries, you may have a valid product liability claim against the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer. Under New York law, you can pursue strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty theories if you can prove the product was defective when it left the defendant’s control and that this defect substantially caused your injuries. Thorough documentation—including maintenance records, expert testimony, and product testing—can strengthen your case. A skilled car accident attorney serving New York can help you navigate these complex legal theories and secure the compensation you deserve.

For example, Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330 (N.Y. 1973) demonstrates how a car manufacturer can be held liable for selling a defective product under strict product liability. The plaintiff, Christino Paglia, lost control of his Chrysler vehicle due to a defective power steering system, causing a head-on collision that injured Frank and Marcia Codling, who were bystanders. The court found Chrysler liable for breach of warranty, even though negligence was not proven. The ruling emphasized that manufacturers are responsible for defects that make their products unsafe, holding them accountable for injuries to users and innocent bystanders. This decision expanded product liability law, confirming that a defect alone can establish liability if it was a substantial factor in causing harm. The court rejected Chrysler’s argument that no specific defect was identified, ruling that product failure itself was sufficient evidence. Additionally, the decision clarified that car manufacturers cannot limit responsibility only to buyers—anyone injured by a defective vehicle can seek compensation.

In New York, multiple types of insurance may apply when seeking compensation for car accident injuries and related losses. Coverage often depends on the policies you and the other driver hold, as well as who is at fault. Below are common types of insurance relevant to New York car accidents:

No-Fault. Over fifty years ago, in 1974, New York State’s Legislature enacted sweeping changes to address compensation for personal injuries in car accidents. Commonly referred to as the No-Fault Law and codified in N.Y. Ins. Law §§ 5101 et seq., the Comprehensive Automobile Insurance Reparations Act provides a plan for compensating victims of motor vehicle accidents for economic losses without regard to fault or negligence. Currently, the law requires every vehicle owner in New York to carry at least $50,000 of no-fault insurance, also referred to as Personal Injury Protection (PIP). PIP generally covers medical expenses and lost wages, paying up to 80% of your lost wages or $2,000 per month, whichever is less. It applies regardless of who caused the accident, but does not cover pain and suffering. Bodily Injury (BI) Liability. The minimum BI coverage in New York is $25,000 per person and $50,000 total for all injured persons per accident. If the other driver is at fault, their BI coverage can help pay for your injuries—especially if you meet the “serious injury” threshold. Damages may include pain and suffering in addition to medical bills.

Collision & Property Damage Coverage. Under N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 311(4)(a), drivers must carry at least $25,000 in property damage liability coverage to compensate others for vehicle or property repairs. If you have optional collision coverage, it can pay to repair or replace your own vehicle—minus any deductible—regardless of who caused the accident. This additional coverage can be particularly valuable if you need to quickly restore your vehicle after a crash.

Supplemental Underinsured/Uninsured Motorist. Under N.Y. Ins. Law § 3420(f)(1)-(2), New York mandates uninsured motorist (UM) coverage, while supplemental underinsured motorist (SUM) coverage is optional but strongly recommended. SUM or UM applies when the at-fault driver has no insurance or insufficient coverage. Typically, it protects you, your household family members, and possibly certain domestic partners. SUM coverage supplements the at-fault driver’s policy, helping you recover compensation for medical bills and other losses when their policy limits are too low, or they are entirely uninsured. It can be a crucial safety net, ensuring you have adequate compensation in the event of a serious accident.

For example, Grinshpun v. Travelers Cas. Co. of Conn., 23 Misc. 3d 1111(A), 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 50706(U) (Sup. Ct. Kings County 2009) involved a dispute over SUM coverage under a Travelers insurance policy. The plaintiffs sought to recover SUM benefits after a car accident, claiming the insurer acted in bad faith by denying their claims.

On July 31, 2004, the plaintiffs were in a car accident. The at-fault driver had GEICO insurance with coverage limits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per accident. GEICO tendered these limits, and the plaintiffs accepted, with Travelers’ approval. One of the plaintiffs, Sergio M. Rovner, had a Travelers insurance policy that included SUM coverage with $100,000 per person/$300,000 per accident limits. Rovner and Dimitry Grinshpun claimed they suffered injuries, entitling them to the full $100,000 SUM coverage. Anna Rovner sought $100,000 for loss of consortium.

Travelers denied their claims, leading the plaintiffs to file a lawsuit. They alleged that Travelers’ denial was made in bad faith and sought $100,000 per person in SUM benefits, plus $1,000,000 each for bad faith damages.

The court held that:

• The plaintiffs had a valid claim for SUM benefits under the policy.
• The bad faith claim was legally viable, based on precedent that allows an insured to seek damages when an insurer unjustifiably denies coverage.

SUM coverage protects insured individuals when an at-fault driver has insufficient insurance. Policyholders can recover damages up to their SUM policy limits if their losses exceed the liability limits of the at-fault driver’s insurance. In this case, GEICO’s $25,000 per person limit was inadequate to cover the plaintiffs’ injuries, so they sought additional compensation through Rovner’s $100,000 SUM policy with Travelers.

The plaintiffs claimed that Travelers acted in bad faith by refusing to pay despite clear entitlement to benefits. They argued that Travelers disregarded their interests and unfairly denied the claims. New York law allows an insured to recover extra damages if an insurer denies coverage in bad faith. Under Sukup v. State of New York, an insurer can be held liable if its denial is so unreasonable that no reasonable carrier would assert it. The court determined that Travelers’ denial required further examination to determine whether it met the legal standard for bad faith.

Driver’s Insurance (Non-Owner Policies). If the at-fault driver does not own the car, they may have a non-owner insurance policy. Additionally, the vehicle owner’s policy often provides primary coverage if the driver had permission to operate the car.

Determining which policy applies can be complex, so consulting an attorney is essential to ensure you pursue all available sources of compensation.

• Rear-End Collisions: Often caused by distracted driving, tailgating, or sudden braking. For example, in Passos v. Mta Bus Co., 13 N.Y.S.3d 4 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015). On May 3, 2010, a multi-vehicle rear-end collision occurred on Second Avenue, involving DiPaoli’s car, the Passos truck, and an MTA bus driven by Moses. DiPaoli, who was stopped at a red light, was struck twice from behind—first by Passos's truck and then by the MTA bus. Under New York law, when a stopped vehicle is rear-ended, there is a presumption of negligence on the part of the rear driver. In this case, plaintiffs argued that the MTA bus driver was negligent for failing to maintain a safe distance. While the court agreed that there is a presumption that that the following car was negligent, it also noted that this presumption could be rebutted if the rear vehicle provided a valid non-negligent explanation for the collision.
• Head-On Collisions: Frequently result from impaired driving, driving on the wrong side of the road, or vehicle malfunction. In Gordon v. Calderon, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 34892 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020), Alexa Gordon filed a personal injury lawsuit based on a head-on collision involving a vehicle driven by Adelso Calderon and owned by Cinelouise Crisp. Gordon alleged that Calderon’s negligence caused him to veer into her lane, resulting in a severe crash. The accident caused significant injuries to Gordon, prompting her to seek damages for the physical and financial harm she suffered. Filed in the Supreme Court of Rockland County, the case addressed liability issues and procedural matters related to the incident. Head-on collisions, such as this one, often lead to serious injuries and extensive property damage, underscoring the severe consequences of negligent driving.
• Side-Impact (T-Bone) Collisions: Typically occur when a driver runs a red light, ignores a stop sign, or fails to yield.
• Multi-Vehicle Accidents: Common on busy highways; determining liability can be complex.
• Pedestrian Accidents: Often involve distracted driving or speeding in high-traffic areas.
• Rollover Accidents: More prevalent among SUVs and trucks with higher centers of gravity.

While accidents can happen anywhere, certain intersections stand out for their higher rates of crashes and injuries. According to various traffic safety studies and local data, some of the intersections known for a high number of accidents in New York City include:

• Atlantic Avenue & Flatbush Avenue (Brooklyn): High congestion and multiple merging lanes contribute to frequent collisions.
• Queens Boulevard & Yellowstone Boulevard (Queens): Dubbed the “Boulevard of Death,” Queens Boulevard has long been known for a high volume of crashes.
• Canal Street & Bowery (Manhattan): Heavy pedestrian traffic, tour buses, and commercial vehicles make this intersection particularly chaotic.
• Grand Concourse & East Fordham Road (The Bronx): A busy corridor with numerous crosswalks and public transit stops.
• Woodhaven Boulevard & Myrtle Avenue (Queens): Fast-moving traffic and multiple turning lanes make this a hotspot for accidents, despite recent redesigns.
• Tillary Street & Flatbush Avenue Extension (Brooklyn): Situated near key entry points to the Brooklyn Bridge, this intersection sees heavy commuter traffic and frequent merging issues.
• Hylan Boulevard & New Dorp Lane (Staten Island): Fast-moving traffic and inadequate pedestrian crossings contribute to recurring accidents.
• Bowery & Delancey Street (Manhattan): A major downtown artery where pedestrians, bicycles, and cars converge in a multi-lane setup, often leading to confusion and accidents.
• Broadway & West 96th Street (Manhattan): Heavy foot traffic from nearby subway stations and multiple lanes of traffic often result in turn-related collisions.
• Bruckner Boulevard & Hunts Point Avenue (The Bronx): This industrial area sees significant truck traffic, increasing the risk of serious collisions.

Note that traffic patterns, construction, and other factors can alter the risk level at an intersection. However, these intersections typically involve high traffic volumes, complex roadway designs, or limited visibility. Being vigilant, obeying traffic signals, and avoiding distractions can reduce your risk of a crash. If you are involved in an accident at one of these—or any other—New York intersections, contact us for immediate legal assistance.

Immediately call the police to report the accident. Ask for medical assistance if anyone is injured.

Even if you feel fine, get a medical evaluation. Some injuries—like whiplash or a concussion—may not show symptoms right away. Keep meticulous records of all medical appointments, treatments, and expenses.

Exchange contact and insurance details with all involved drivers. Collect names and phone numbers of witnesses. Also, obtain contact information for witnesses and passengers.

Use your phone to take photos and videos of vehicle damage, road conditions, license plates, and visible injuries.

• Tip: If property damage exceeds $1,000, you must file a Report of Motor Vehicle Accident (MV-104) with the DMV within 10 days.

Promptly report the accident. Delays in reporting can sometimes jeopardize your claim.

Before making recorded statements or signing any insurance settlement, contact an experienced New York car accident lawyer to discuss your legal rights. Avoid admitting fault at the scene or in any initial statements to the police or insurance companies.

Q: How much does it cost to hire a car accident lawyer?

A: We handle car accident cases on a contingency fee basis, meaning you owe no legal fees unless we recover compensation on your behalf.

Q: What if I was partially at fault for the accident?

A: Under pure comparative negligence, you can still recover damages even if you were partly at fault. The court will reduce your award by your percentage of fault.

Q: How long does a car accident case take?

A: The timeline varies. Factors include the severity of injuries, complexity of liability, and whether the case settles or goes to trial. Some cases resolve in months, while others can take a year or more.

Q: What is the Statute of Limitations in New York Car Accident Cases?

A: Generally, you have three years from the date of the accident to file a lawsuit for personal injuries. If the victim died as a result of the accident, generally, you have two years from the date of the victim’s death to file a wrongful death claim. There can be exceptions to these general deadlines. For example, if the injured person is a minor, the statute of limitations may be tolled (suspended) until they reach the age of majority, which is 18 in New York. If you can demonstrate that the other party engaged in fraud or concealment that prevented you from filing your claim in a timely manner, the court may allow an extension of the deadline. In addition, if a governmental entity is named as the defendant in the lawsuit, the deadline to file a Notice of Claim is 90 days.

Q: Should I give a recorded statement to the insurance company?

A: It’s best to first consult with an experienced car accident attorney in New York. Insurance adjusters may use your statements to minimize or deny your claim.

Q: Can I still file a claim if I was a passenger in the vehicle?

A: Yes, you can still file a claim if you were a passenger in the vehicle. You may be able to recover damages from the driver of the vehicle you were in, the driver of the other vehicle, or both.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, we understand how overwhelming a car accident can be when facing mounting bills, lost wages, and insurance hassles. Our experienced car accident attorneys serving New York understand New York’s no-fault insurance laws, ensuring you receive the compensation you deserve. With decades of experience and a track record of substantial settlements, we build strong cases, negotiate effectively, and, if necessary, take cases to trial. We also recognize the toll of an accident, so we offer empathetic, client-focused representation.

Contact us at 800.696.9529 to schedule a free, no-obligation consultation regarding your car accident. We represent injured victims and their families in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island, Staten Island, Bronx, Nassau County, Westchester County, and Suffolk County.