NYC E-Scooter Accidents: Liability for Dooring and Curb Pull-Outs

Some of the most dangerous electric scooter accidents in New York City happen without a speeding car running a red light or making a dramatic turn. A rider may be traveling lawfully along the street or in a bike lane when a parked driver suddenly opens a door into the rider’s path. In another common scenario, a stopped or parked vehicle unexpectedly pulls away from the curb just as the scooter is passing. Both accidents can unfold in a fraction of a second and leave the rider with almost no realistic opportunity to avoid impact.

New York law specifically addresses both situations. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1214 restricts opening a vehicle door into moving traffic unless it is reasonably safe and does not interfere with traffic. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1162 separately prohibits moving a stopped, standing, or parked vehicle unless it can be moved safely. These rules matter because e-scooter riders often travel exactly where dooring and curb-pullout accidents occur: alongside parked vehicles, near bike lanes, and through narrow New York City streets where there may be little room to escape.

At Greenstein & Pittari, LLP, we investigate whether the driver or passenger looked before opening the door, whether a parked vehicle pulled into traffic without yielding, whether the scooter rider was visible, and whether video or physical evidence can establish the sequence of events. If you were injured in a dooring accident or struck by a vehicle pulling from the curb in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island, or elsewhere in New York City, call 1-800-VICTIM2 (1-800-842-8462) for a free consultation.

Who is liable when a car door opens into an electric scooter rider?

A driver or passenger who opens a vehicle door into the path of an approaching e-scooter rider may be liable when the door was opened before it was reasonably safe to do so. New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1214 prohibits opening a motor vehicle door on the side available to moving traffic unless it can be done safely and without interfering with other traffic. The statute also prohibits leaving the door open longer than reasonably necessary to load or unload passengers. The law applies to opening the door, not merely to the person driving the car. A passenger who suddenly opens a rear door into a bike lane can therefore become the central negligent actor. The rider’s legal team should determine who opened the door, how long the vehicle had been parked or stopped, whether the occupant looked beforehand, and whether the scooter was plainly visible. The physical location of the bike lane, curb, door, scooter, and impact point can help establish whether the rider had any meaningful opportunity to react.

Does New York law specifically prohibit dooring cyclists and e-scooter riders?

Yes. VTL § 1214 is written broadly enough to protect moving traffic from unsafe door openings, including lawful e-scooter traffic using the roadway or bike lane. The statute does not require the injured rider to prove that the occupant intended to cause harm. The issue is whether the door opened before the driver could move safely. NYC DOT separately warns motorists to check before opening doors and recommends the “New York Twist,” using the far hand to open the door. As a result, the person’s body naturally turns toward approaching traffic. NYC DOT also warns riders to watch parked cars because opening doors is a recognized roadway hazard. These safety messages reinforce a practical point: dooring is foreseeable. It is a known urban traffic danger that motorists and passengers are expected to guard against.

Can a passenger be liable for opening the door into an e-scooter rider?

Yes. A passenger can be liable when they open a vehicle door into moving traffic without first making sure it is reasonably safe. VTL § 1214 applies to “no person,” not just the driver, so that the obligation can extend to anyone opening the door. This can become especially important in taxi and rideshare cases. An Uber, Lyft, or taxi passenger may open a rear door directly into a bike lane and then leave the scene before police finish gathering information. Trip records, rideshare app data, taxi records, vehicle-camera footage, or driver testimony may later be needed to identify the passenger. Depending on the facts, the driver may also face separate scrutiny concerning where the vehicle stopped and whether the passenger was discharged into an obviously active bike lane.

Can the driver also be liable when a passenger opens the door?

Possibly. The passenger who opened the door may be directly responsible, but the driver may also be liable if the driver’s conduct contributed to the dangerous situation. For example, the driver may have stopped in a location where passengers would necessarily exit into an active bike lane or may have failed to warn a passenger about an approaching rider that the driver could see. Liability should not be assumed merely because the driver was present. The investigation should examine where the vehicle stopped, what the driver could see, whether the driver gave instructions, whether the passenger exited immediately, and whether the driver created or increased the risk. In a rideshare or taxi case, app or trip records may also show whether the vehicle had just completed a drop-off at the precise location where the door opened.

What if the door opened only a second before the e-scooter hit it?

The timing can strongly support the rider’s case because an abruptly opened door may leave no realistic opportunity to stop or swerve safely. An e-scooter rider traveling lawfully alongside parked vehicles is not required to anticipate that every door will suddenly open into the rider’s path. The defense may argue that the rider should have been farther away from the parked vehicles or should have stopped sooner. That argument must be measured against actual reaction time, distance, speed, roadway width, traffic conditions, and whether another escape path existed. Video can be particularly valuable because it can show precisely when the door began opening relative to the rider’s approach. A collision that occurs almost immediately after the door moves presents a very different liability picture from a door left open and visible for an extended period.

What if the e-scooter rider hits the edge of the door rather than the person opening it?

The legal analysis is generally the same because the central question is whether the door was opened into moving traffic when it was unsafe to do so. A rider may strike the outer edge of the door, the interior panel, the hinge area, or even swerve and fall without directly striking the occupant. Damage patterns can help reconstruct what happened. Scrapes, dents, broken mirrors, bent hinges, scooter handlebar damage, clothing transfer, and road marks may indicate whether the rider struck a newly opened door or encountered one that had been open for some time. In serious cases, accident reconstruction may help determine the sequence when the occupants and rider give conflicting accounts.

Can a driver be liable for pulling away from the curb into an e-scooter rider?

Yes. New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1162 provides that a stopped, standing, or parked vehicle may not begin moving until that movement can be made with reasonable safety. A driver who pulls from the curb into the path of an approaching e-scooter without checking traffic may therefore be liable for causing the collision. These crashes often occur when the scooter is traveling straight, and the parked vehicle suddenly moves left into the rider’s lane or bike-lane space. The driver may claim the scooter was in a blind spot, but that does not answer whether the driver looked properly before moving. Mirrors, shoulder checks, signals, nearby cameras, and the relative positions of the vehicles can help determine whether the scooter was there to be seen before the curbside vehicle started moving.

Does a driver have to signal before pulling away from the curb?

A driver beginning a lateral movement from the curb can also implicate New York’s signaling and turning-movement rules when the vehicle moves left into the roadway. VTL § 1163 prohibits moving right or left on a roadway unless the movement can be made with reasonable safety and requires an appropriate signal when the statute applies. The absence of a turn signal can matter because a rider approaching from behind may rely on the parked vehicle’s apparent stationary position. If the vehicle suddenly accelerates into the rider’s path without signaling, the scooter rider may have little warning that the driver intends to reenter traffic. A signal does not give the driver automatic right-of-way, however. The driver must still move safely.

What if the driver checked the mirror but still did not see the scooter?

Simply saying “I checked my mirror” does not necessarily establish reasonable care. The question is whether the driver made an adequate observation under the circumstances and whether the scooter was visible before the vehicle moved. A scooter may be visible through another mirror, through a direct shoulder check, or for several seconds before entering a driver’s blind area. Surveillance footage can sometimes show that the rider approached steadily from behind while the driver remained stopped at the curb. If the driver then moved out immediately as the rider reached the vehicle, a generic statement that the scooter was “in the blind spot” may not resolve fault. The same principle applies to dooring. Known blind spots require greater care, not less. A person opening a door or pulling from the curb should account for the possibility that bicycles and e-scooters may be traveling alongside the vehicle.

What if the driver says the e-scooter rider was going too fast?

Excessive scooter speed can become a comparative-fault issue, but it does not automatically excuse an unsafe door opening or curb departure. The defense must still establish the rider’s actual speed and whether it contributed to the collision. A driver’s impression that the scooter “seemed fast” is not the same as objective proof. Video, known distances, timestamps, app or device data, and accident reconstruction may provide more reliable evidence. The timing of the driver’s movement also matters. Even a rider traveling at a lawful speed may be unable to avoid a door opened a few feet ahead or a vehicle suddenly pulling into the rider’s path. The proper analysis examines both actions. The rider’s speed should be evaluated, but so should whether the door opener or driver complied with VTL §§ 1214 and 1162.

Can the e-scooter rider be blamed for riding too close to parked cars?

The defense may argue that the rider traveled too close to parked vehicles. Still, that allegation must be evaluated in the context of the available roadway space and the rider’s actual position. NYC DOT specifically recognizes dooring as a known hazard and advises riders to maintain distance from parked vehicles where possible. In many New York City streets, however, riders cannot simply move several feet farther left without entering active vehicle traffic. A painted bike lane may place riders directly next to parked cars. Construction, traffic, lane width, and other conditions can further restrict the available path. The law does not permit vehicle occupants to open doors unsafely merely because a rider was close to the parking lane. Comparative fault depends on what a reasonably careful rider could do under the actual conditions, not on an idealized street with unlimited space.

Can a rider move away from parked cars to avoid the door zone?

Yes: when roadway conditions make staying close to parked vehicles unsafe, the rider’s position should be evaluated based on the actual hazard rather than mechanically judged by proximity to the curb. NYC DOT itself advises riders to keep distance from parked vehicles because of dooring risk. A defendant may later argue that the rider was too far into the travel lane. The reason matters. Suppose the rider had moved left specifically to avoid parked-car doors; that may explain the position. Roadway photographs, bike-lane design, lane width, and surveillance footage can help show whether the rider’s path was reasonable under the circumstances.

Who is liable when a parked taxi or rideshare vehicle pulls into an e-scooter rider?

The driver may be liable if the taxi, Uber, Lyft, or other for-hire vehicle starts from the curb before it can move safely. VTL § 1162 applies to a vehicle that is stopped, standing, or parked, regardless of whether it is privately owned or being used commercially. For-hire vehicles frequently stop and start in places where e-scooters and bicycles travel. The driver may be focused on the app, a passenger, navigation, or finding the next fare as they pull away. Trip and platform data can help establish whether the vehicle had just completed a pickup or drop-off. At the same time, dashcam or interior camera footage may show whether the driver checked before moving. Commercial insurance and TLC records can also become relevant to the larger claim.

Who is liable when a taxi or rideshare passenger doors an e-scooter rider?

The passenger who opens the door can be directly liable, while the driver and commercial operation may also require investigation depending on where and how the vehicle stopped. VTL § 1214 applies directly to the person opening the door, including a passenger. These cases can become difficult because the passenger may leave immediately and the injured rider may never learn the person’s name. Rideshare trip records, taxi records, surveillance footage, vehicle cameras, receipts, and driver testimony may later help identify that person. If the driver deliberately stopped in a location that exposed passengers to an active bike lane, the driver’s own conduct should also be reviewed rather than focusing exclusively on the passenger.

What if the car was only temporarily stopped and not legally parked?

VTL § 1162 expressly applies to vehicles that are stopped, standing, or parked, so the driver’s obligation to move only when reasonably safe is not limited to a vehicle occupying a lawful parking space. That distinction can matter with taxis, rideshare vehicles, delivery vehicles, and drivers who stop briefly at the curb. A motorist cannot avoid the safety rule by arguing, “I wasn’t parked, I was only stopped for a minute.” If the vehicle is stationary and then reenters moving traffic, the driver still must make that movement safely. The same factual setting can create a dooring claim if a passenger opens a door while the vehicle is temporarily stopped. The focus remains on the safety of the door opening or movement from the curb, not the vehicle’s technical parking status.

What if a vehicle pulls from the curb without hitting the scooter, but causes the rider to fall?

A driver can potentially be liable even without physical contact if pulling from the curb negligently forces the rider to take evasive action and crash. Contact is useful evidence, but it is not always required to establish causation. For example, a car may suddenly pull into the bike lane, forcing the rider to brake hard, strike the curb, or swerve into another object. The driver may then continue because no physical impact occurred. In that situation, surveillance footage and independent witnesses become especially important because the driver may later deny involvement. The rider should describe the event accurately from the beginning. Saying only “I fell off the scooter” can create confusion if the true mechanism was that a vehicle pulled directly into the rider’s path and caused the emergency maneuver.

What if the rider swerves around an opening door and gets hit by another car?

The person who opened the door may still bear responsibility if the unsafe door opening set in motion the sequence that forced the rider into another vehicle’s path. The driver of the second vehicle may also share responsibility depending on speed, lookout, following distance, and opportunity to avoid the collision. These chain-reaction cases require careful causation analysis. A defendant may argue that because the scooter never struck the door, the door opening was irrelevant. Video may show exactly the opposite: the rider made an immediate evasive movement only because the door unexpectedly blocked the lawful path. More than one negligent act can contribute to the same injury. The legal investigation should identify the entire sequence rather than focusing solely on the final physical impact.

What if a vehicle pulls from the curb and sideswipes the scooter?

A sideswipe after a curb departure can strongly implicate VTL § 1162 because the driver has a duty not to begin moving until it is reasonably safe. The location of impact can help establish whether the scooter was already traveling alongside the vehicle when the driver moved outward. Damage along the side of the car rather than the front may support the rider’s account that the vehicle moved laterally into the scooter. Handlebar damage, mirror contact, scratches, paint transfer, and clothing damage can also become useful evidence. A driver may argue that the scooter attempted an unsafe pass. Compare that defense with roadway layout, bike-lane markings, video, witness testimony, and the vehicle’s starting position at the curb.

What if the driver says the scooter was in the blind spot when pulling from the curb?

A blind spot does not automatically excuse a driver from complying with VTL § 1162. The obligation is to move only when the movement can be made safely. If a driver knows that a particular mirror does not reveal the entire area alongside the vehicle, a direct shoulder check or additional observation may be necessary before pulling out. The precise standard depends on the circumstances, but simply identifying a blind spot after the crash does not answer whether the driver exercised reasonable care. Video can show whether the scooter was visible before it entered any blind zone and whether the driver had time to observe it while still stationary.

Can the vehicle owner be liable if someone else opened the door or pulled from the curb?

Potentially. Vehicle-owner liability and the direct negligence of the person opening the door or operating the vehicle involve different legal theories. When another person was driving with the owner’s permission, New York’s vehicle-owner liability statute may become relevant. When a passenger opens the door, the passenger’s personal negligence under VTL § 1214 is generally the more direct issue, although other facts may implicate additional parties. Ownership should still be investigated. The car may belong to an employer, fleet, taxi company, rideshare-related business, or another person whose insurance may become important. The police report may list only the driver. Registration records, insurance information, and commercial records can reveal additional legally relevant relationships.

What if the driver who pulls from the curb is working at the time?

If the driver is acting within the scope of employment, the employer may potentially be responsible for the driver’s negligence in addition to the driver’s own liability. This can arise with delivery vans, service vehicles, company cars, taxis, and other commercial operations. The driver’s work status can also affect available insurance. Commercial policies often carry different limits and may provide a more meaningful source of recovery after serious injuries. Dispatch records, GPS data, trip records, work schedules, delivery information, and company communications can help establish whether the driver was performing job duties at the time. A curb-pullout collision involving a commercial vehicle should therefore be investigated beyond the driver and vehicle alone.

What evidence is most important in an e-scooter dooring case?

Surveillance video, photographs, witness testimony, door and scooter damage, vehicle location, bike-lane markings, and identification of the person who opened the door are often the most important evidence. Video can answer several questions at once: how long the door was open, whether the occupant looked, the rider’s speed, the rider’s position, and whether there was any realistic opportunity to avoid impact. Nearby stores, apartment buildings, restaurants, parking facilities, buses, and other vehicles may have cameras facing the street. Photographs should show the vehicle, open-door area, curb, bike lane, roadway width, scooter, and impact location. The physical relationship between the parking lane and rider’s lawful path can make the risk immediately understandable. If the accident involves a rideshare or taxi passenger, preserving trip information may also be essential to identifying who opened the door.

What evidence is most important when a vehicle pulls from the curb?

Video, vehicle damage, turn-signal evidence, roadway markings, witnesses, GPS or commercial data, and the relative positions of the scooter and parked vehicle can help prove whether the driver moved before it was safe.

The key timeline usually begins before the vehicle starts moving. Was the scooter approaching steadily from behind? How long was it visible? Did the driver signal? Did the vehicle move abruptly or gradually? Was there traffic preventing the rider from moving farther left?

Damage to the side of the car or scooter may support the sequence. In a commercial or rideshare case, onboard cameras or trip records can provide additional evidence. A photograph taken after both vehicles have moved is rarely enough on its own. The investigation should reconstruct the moments leading up to the driver’s departure from the curb.

Should I preserve my e-scooter after a dooring or curb-pullout accident?

Yes. The scooter can become important physical evidence in a serious injury case and generally should not be repaired or discarded before assessing its evidentiary value. Dooring can leave distinctive damage to handlebars, stems, wheels, frames, or controls. A sideswipe may create paint transfer or scraping. The location and pattern of damage can help establish how contact occurred. The scooter can also become relevant if the defense argues that brake failure, poor lighting, excessive speed capability, or another mechanical issue caused or contributed to the accident. Photograph the device thoroughly and preserve its make, model, serial number, and specifications.

Can a police report determine who was responsible for a dooring accident?

A police report can be useful, but it does not necessarily determine civil liability, particularly when the officer did not witness the door opening or curb movement. The officer may rely on statements from the driver, passenger, rider, or witnesses. A rider transported to the hospital may never have the opportunity to provide a detailed version at the scene, allowing an incomplete account to dominate the initial report. Video or physical evidence may later contradict the report. A passenger who claims the door was already open may be contradicted by footage showing it swing outward immediately before impact. The report is therefore a starting point, not a substitute for independent investigation.

Does getting doored automatically prove the rider wins the case?

No. VTL § 1214 can provide strong evidence against the person who opened the door, but the surrounding facts still matter. The defense may dispute whether the door was newly opened, whether the rider was traveling lawfully, whether the rider could have avoided the condition, or whether another event caused the fall. The rider’s own conduct can become part of the comparative-fault analysis where legally applicable. Courts may examine speed, lane position, direction of travel, attention, and visibility. The advantage of a strong dooring case is that New York law expressly places a safety obligation on the person opening the door into moving traffic. The plaintiff should still prove the accident carefully rather than treating the statute as a substitute for evidence.

Does New York comparative fault apply in dooring and curb-pullout cases?

Comparative fault can apply when the defense claims the e-scooter rider also contributed to the accident. Still, the governing New York framework depends on the claim type and whether Insurance Law Article 51 applies. For example, a driver may violate VTL § 1214 by opening a door unsafely while arguing that the scooter rider was simultaneously traveling too fast. In a curb-pullout case, the driver may violate VTL § 1162 but claim the rider was traveling in the wrong direction. The effect of those competing allegations depends on proof, causation, and the current comparative-fault statute. New York amended CPLR § 1411 in 2026 for personal injury actions subject to Insurance Law Article 51. Counsel should therefore determine which framework applies rather than relying on outdated blanket statements that New York always follows the same pure comparative-negligence rule. The practical lesson is that fault percentages should never be conceded casually. Objective evidence can make the difference.

Does New York No-Fault insurance cover an e-scooter rider injured in a dooring or curb-pullout accident?

It may, particularly when the injury arises from the use or operation of an insured motor vehicle, but coverage depends on the facts and the statutory framework. A dooring accident is closely connected to a motor vehicle, and a curb-pullout collision plainly involves vehicle operation. New York Insurance Law § 5103 provides first-party benefits to qualifying persons injured through the use or operation of an insured motor vehicle, subject to the statute’s conditions. No-Fault benefits can address qualifying medical expenses and certain economic losses, while the separate liability claim against the negligent driver, passenger, or other responsible party addresses broader damages. Analyze these claims promptly because first-party insurance deadlines can arise long before the ordinary lawsuit deadline.

Does the serious injury threshold apply to a dooring or curb-pullout e-scooter claim?

It can when the personal injury claim falls within New York’s Insurance Law Article 51 framework. The threshold affects recovery of non-economic damages such as pain and suffering, not whether the door was opened negligently or the vehicle pulled from the curb unsafely. A fracture is one of the statutory serious-injury categories. Other injuries may require proof of permanent loss, consequential limitation, significant limitation, or another category under the current law. Medical documentation should establish both the diagnosis and functional consequences. MRI findings alone do not always resolve the legal threshold. Treat liability, serious injury, and damages as separate questions. A strong VTL § 1214 violation can prove negligence while medical proof determines whether the injured rider may recover non-economic damages.

What injuries commonly occur in e-scooter dooring accidents?

Dooring accidents can cause severe orthopedic, neurological, facial, and spinal injuries because the rider is often stopped abruptly and thrown onto pavement with almost no warning. The rider may strike the door with the handlebars, shoulder, arm, knee, or face before falling. Common injuries can include wrist and arm fractures, shoulder tears, clavicle fractures, knee injuries, dental trauma, facial fractures, traumatic brain injuries, spinal injuries, lacerations, and significant road rash. A curb-pullout sideswipe can produce similar injuries or push the rider into moving traffic, potentially making the consequences even more severe. The seriousness of the case should be based on the actual medical impact, not on whether the car was moving slowly or not moving at all when the initial hazard was created.

What damages can I recover after a dooring or curb-pullout e-scooter accident?

An injured rider may seek legally recoverable economic and non-economic damages caused by the accident, subject to New York’s insurance and personal injury laws. Economic losses can include recoverable medical expenses, lost income, reduced earning capacity, rehabilitation, future treatment, and related financial losses. A serious shoulder, wrist, knee, or spinal injury can interfere with both physical work and ordinary daily activities long after the initial treatment. Non-economic damages can include pain and suffering, disability, scarring, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life when legally recoverable. Case value depends on the rider’s actual injuries, prognosis, liability evidence, insurance coverage, and long-term consequences. There is no standard “dooring settlement” simply because the accident mechanism is similar.

How long do I have to file a dooring or curb-pullout lawsuit in New York?

Many negligence claims against private defendants are subject to a three-year statute of limitations, but shorter insurance or governmental deadlines can apply depending on the circumstances. A privately owned car dooring case may follow the ordinary negligence timetable, while a collision involving a municipal vehicle can trigger a 90-day Notice of Claim requirement. No-Fault, UM/SUM, or MVAIC issues can create much shorter notice periods. Evidence creates the most immediate deadline. A storefront camera may overwrite footage within days. A rideshare passenger may become difficult to identify. A taxi or commercial vehicle may return to service and lose onboard recordings. Early investigation does not require filing a lawsuit immediately. It preserves the evidence you need if litigation becomes necessary later.

What should I do after being doored or hit by a vehicle pulling from the curb?

Seek medical attention, identify everyone involved, report the accident, and preserve video and physical evidence as quickly as possible. If a passenger opened the door, obtain the passenger’s identity rather than documenting only the driver. Photograph the vehicle, license plate, door, scooter, bike lane, curb, and accident location. Obtain witness contact information and immediately look for cameras. In taxi or rideshare cases, preserve trip or vehicle identifying information. Do not repair the scooter after a serious accident until its evidentiary value has been considered. Keep medical records, photographs of injuries, and proof of lost earnings. Most importantly, avoid assuming that the driver’s statement that “I checked first” or the passenger’s claim that “the door was already open” resolves the case. Objective evidence may tell a very different story.

How does Greenstein & Pittari, LLP investigate an NYC e-scooter dooring or curb-pullout accident?

We reconstruct the seconds before the collision because those seconds usually determine liability. In a dooring case, we examine when the door opened, who opened it, what that person could see, where the rider was traveling, and whether the rider had realistic time to react. In a curb-pullout case, we investigate whether the driver checked mirrors and surrounding traffic, signaled, observed the scooter, and waited until reentry could be made safely. Our investigation can include surveillance video, taxi or rideshare data, witnesses, vehicle ownership, insurance, photographs, door and scooter damage, roadway markings, commercial records, and medical evidence. When another responsible party is involved, such as an employer or commercial vehicle owner, we investigate that relationship and applicable insurance. We also anticipate comparative-fault arguments. If the defense claims the rider was too close to parked cars, we document the lane width and available space. If it alleges speeding, we look for objective speed evidence. If the driver claims the scooter was invisible, we investigate sight lines and video. The purpose is to replace assumptions with proof.

Why Choose Greenstein & Pittari, LLP After an NYC E-Scooter Dooring or Curb-Pullout Accident?

Dooring and curb-pullout accidents often happen so quickly that the negligent person immediately claims the rider had enough time to stop or should have been somewhere else. Meanwhile, the video that could settle the dispute may be overwritten, the passenger who opened the door may disappear, and the vehicle may be back in service within hours. These cases require an attorney who understands both New York traffic statutes and the importance of preserving evidence immediately.

Greenstein & Pittari, LLP has decades of experience representing injury victims throughout New York and has litigated complex personal injury cases. We conduct thorough investigations designed to establish exactly when a door opened or a vehicle began moving, identify every responsible driver, passenger, owner, employer, or commercial entity, and locate every available source of insurance. When a governmental vehicle or institution is involved, we handle the special notice requirements and shortened deadlines that can apply.

Our attorneys prepare cases aggressively while providing compassionate, personalized representation. A rider thrown from an e-scooter can suddenly face surgery, lost income, chronic pain, rehabilitation, and insurance-company efforts to shift blame. We handle the investigation and litigation so our clients can focus on their medical recovery.

Our English- and Spanish-speaking staff assists injured New Yorkers throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island, and surrounding communities. Consultations are free, and we handle personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis. You do not pay an attorney’s fee unless we successfully recover money for you.

If a driver or passenger opened a car door into your path, or a stopped vehicle suddenly pulled from the curb and struck or forced you off your electric scooter, do not accept the explanation that you should have avoided it. New York law specifically requires safe door opening and safe movement from a stopped or parked position. The evidence will determine whether you violated those duties.

Don’t Be a Victim Twice.

Call Greenstein & Pittari, LLP at 1-800-VICTIM2 (1-800-842-8462) today for a free consultation. We can preserve surveillance footage, identify the responsible driver or passenger, investigate vehicle ownership and insurance, address unfair comparative-fault allegations, and fight for the full compensation available under New York law.