Should I Take the First Settlement Offer After an NYC E-Scooter Accident?

Receiving a settlement offer after a New York City e-scooter accident can feel like progress, particularly when medical bills are accumulating and an injury has kept you from working. But an insurance company’s first offer is not an independent assessment of your case’s value. The insurer’s objective is to resolve the claim for an amount it considers financially advantageous while eliminating the risk that your injuries, future damages, or the evidence against its insured will make the case more expensive later.

The most important question, then, is not whether the offer sounds like a lot of money today. It is whether you know enough about your injuries, future treatment, lost earnings, liability, available insurance, liens, and other sources of compensation to make an informed decision. Once a settlement is finalized and a release is signed, discovering later that you need surgery or have permanent limitations generally does not allow you to reopen the released claim.

At Greenstein & Pittari, LLP, we evaluate settlement offers against the evidence and the potential value of the entire claim. If you were injured in an e-scooter accident in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island, or elsewhere in New York, call 1-800-VICTIM2 (1-800-842-8462) for a free consultation before accepting an offer that could permanently end your right to additional compensation.

Should I accept the first settlement offer after an NYC e-scooter accident?

Not until you understand what you are giving up and have enough information to determine whether the offer fairly compensates you. A first offer may arrive before your doctors know whether you need surgery, whether your injuries will be permanent, how long you will remain out of work, or how much insurance is actually available. That does not mean you should automatically reject every first offer. Occasionally, liability, injuries, insurance limits, and future damages are sufficiently clear that an early resolution makes sense. Base the decision on the facts, not on the assumption that the first offer is always bad or that waiting always produces more money. Before accepting, you should generally understand the injuries and prognosis, available liability insurance, comparative-fault issues, economic losses, potential future damages, liens and reimbursement claims, and whether UM/SUM or another source of recovery may exist.

Why would an insurance company make a quick settlement offer?

An insurer may make an early offer because resolving the case before the injuries and damages fully develop can limit its financial exposure. Early in the claim, the injured rider may know very little about what the future holds. A knee injury initially treated with physical therapy may later require arthroscopic surgery. A spinal injury may progress from conservative treatment to injections and eventually surgery. Concussion symptoms that appear temporary may become persistent. A fracture may heal with permanent restrictions or require hardware removal. An insurer that obtains a release before those developments occur has transferred that future risk to the injured person. The speed of an offer should therefore never be confused with generosity.

Does a quick settlement offer mean the insurance company knows it is responsible?

Not necessarily, although an unusually quick offer can sometimes indicate that the carrier recognizes meaningful exposure. The insurer may have reviewed a police report, video, witness statement, or driver’s account and concluded that liability will be difficult to dispute. But early settlement can also be a claims-management strategy. The carrier may believe paying a modest amount now is less expensive than letting the medical case develop. The offer itself does not reveal everything the insurer knows. Liability should be independently investigated rather than inferred from the amount or timing of an adjuster’s proposal.

How do I know whether the settlement offer is fair?

A fair settlement should reasonably account for the strength of liability, injuries, treatment, permanency, future medical needs, past and future income loss, pain and suffering, available insurance, comparative fault, and litigation risk. A $100,000 offer can be excellent in one case and grossly inadequate in another. If the injuries have completely resolved, liability is disputed, and available insurance is limited, the number may represent a reasonable resolution. The same $100,000 can be inadequate for a rider facing spinal surgery, permanent disability, substantial lost earnings, and a defendant with millions of dollars in coverage. You can’t evaluate the number in isolation. Please make sure you know what the evidence supports and what recovery sources exist.

Is there a formula for deciding whether an e-scooter settlement is fair?

No. You can’t value New York personal injury claims by multiplying medical bills by three, assigning a dollar amount to each surgery, or using an online settlement calculator. The same operation can have very different consequences for different people. A shoulder surgery that produces an excellent recovery may have less long-term impact than one leaving permanent weakness and limited range of motion. An ankle injury may have extraordinary consequences for a construction worker who must stand all day but different economic consequences for someone who returns to sedentary work. Settlement evaluation requires a complete assessment of liability, damages, insurance, and litigation risk. A formula cannot meaningfully perform that analysis.

Should I settle before I know whether I need surgery?

Usually, you should exercise substantial caution when surgery remains a realistic possibility, but the medical decision has not yet been made. Once you settle and release the responsible party, a later surgical recommendation generally does not entitle you to additional money from that released defendant. Surgery can dramatically change damages. It can involve hospitalization, anesthesia, postoperative pain, scarring, months of rehabilitation, additional lost earnings, permanent restrictions, and possible future procedures. That does not mean every claimant must wait indefinitely. If the available insurance is clearly limited and the carrier is already offering the full available coverage, the analysis can change. The important point is to understand the medical and insurance picture before making an irreversible decision.

Should I settle if my doctor recommends surgery but I have not decided whether to have it?

The recommendation itself can be significant even if you have not yet decided to undergo the procedure. A legitimate surgical recommendation helps establish the seriousness of the condition and may demonstrate future medical needs. No injured person should undergo surgery merely to increase settlement value. Surgery is a medical decision between the patient and appropriate physicians. If you reasonably choose not to proceed immediately, the case can still account for the diagnosis, limitations, recommendation, prognosis, and possibility of future treatment when supported by competent medical evidence. Generally, avoid settling without considering the financial and personal consequences if surgery becomes necessary later.

What if I already had surgery before the insurance company made an offer?

The settlement evaluation should include much more than the fact that surgery occurred. It should account for why the surgery was necessary, postoperative recovery, rehabilitation, scarring, time lost from work, residual limitations, prognosis, and whether additional treatment will be required. The insurer may also examine causation. If the defense argues that the operation was related to degeneration or a prior condition, medical records and physician opinions connecting the surgery to the accident become particularly important. Do not evaluate a post-surgical offer until you have enough information to understand the result. A successful procedure followed by full recovery presents a different damages picture from surgery leaving permanent restrictions.

What if another surgery may be necessary in the future?

Future surgery can materially increase case value when medical evidence establishes that the procedure is reasonably anticipated because of the accident. Examples can include hardware removal, revision surgery, joint replacement following post-traumatic arthritis, additional spinal procedures, or reconstructive surgery. Future damages can include not only the cost of the operation but also additional pain, rehabilitation, lost income, and limitations. A vague possibility is not a well-supported medical prognosis. Before settlement, you should understand and properly document the treating physician’s opinions about future treatment.

Should I wait until I reach maximum medical improvement before settling?

It is often useful to reach a point where the medical prognosis is reasonably clear, although not every case requires waiting for a formal declaration of maximum medical improvement. The important issue is whether enough is known to estimate future consequences. If doctors can reasonably determine that the client will have permanent limitations and explain future treatment, the case may be capable of intelligent valuation even while some treatment continues. Conversely, when the client is only a few weeks into treatment, and doctors do not yet know whether surgery will be required, settlement can involve substantial uncertainty. That uncertainty generally benefits the insurer more than the injured person.

What happens when I sign a settlement release?

A release generally gives up the claims covered by the agreement against the released parties in exchange for the settlement payment. This is why the language and scope of the release matter. If the injury later worsens, another operation is required, or the client discovers the disability is permanent, the released defendant generally does not have to pay additional compensation merely because the claim turned out to be more serious than anticipated. A release can also affect other insurance claims depending on the circumstances. Before signing, counsel should determine which parties are being released and whether doing so could affect claims against other defendants or an applicable SUM carrier.

Can I reopen my e-scooter accident case if I need surgery after settlement?

Generally, not against a party whose claim was validly settled and released merely because the injuries later prove more serious. That finality is one of the principal reasons insurers seek releases. The carrier pays an agreed amount and buys protection against the risk of future developments. Consider a rider who accepts $40,000 while receiving physical therapy for a knee injury. Six months later, the knee deteriorates, and arthroscopic surgery reveals significant traumatic damage. If the responsible driver was fully released, the rider generally cannot simply return to the carrier and demand another settlement. Future medical uncertainty should therefore be addressed before signing the release, not after.

Should I accept a policy-limits settlement?

A policy-limits offer can be an excellent result, but you should still determine whether other insurance or responsible parties may provide additional recovery before accepting it. Suppose a private driver has only limited bodily injury coverage but was making a delivery for an employer, driving a vehicle owned by someone else, or otherwise connected to another potentially responsible entity. There may be additional insurance. Your own SUM coverage may also become relevant when the negligent motor vehicle’s liability insurance is insufficient. New York Insurance Law § 3420 provides for supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage subject to the applicable policy terms and statutory requirements. “Policy limits” answers only one question: how much that particular policy can pay. It does not necessarily answer how much insurance is available for the entire accident.

How can I find out how much liability insurance the defendant has?

New York law provides mechanisms to obtain liability insurance information, and you should investigate coverage before settling a serious claim. Insurance Law § 3420 contains disclosure requirements that can require insurers to identify applicable liability coverage and policy limits after a qualifying written request. The statute also contains specific disclosure provisions relevant to SUM claims. Once litigation begins, insurance information can also become part of formal disclosure. The objective is to identify not merely the first carrier but every potentially applicable primary, commercial, excess, umbrella, employer, vehicle-owner, or other policy relevant to the accident.

Can there be more than one insurance policy after an e-scooter accident?

Yes. Serious e-scooter accidents can involve multiple sources of insurance, particularly when the responsible vehicle is commercially operated or owned by someone other than the driver. A crash may involve the driver’s liability policy, the vehicle owner’s coverage, employer or commercial insurance, rideshare coverage, excess or umbrella insurance, or potentially the injured person’s SUM coverage. A defective product or dangerous roadway case can involve completely different defendants and policies. Identifying additional insurance can make an enormous difference when the injuries exceed the limits of the first policy discovered.

Should I settle with the driver before investigating SUM coverage?

Not without first protecting any potentially applicable SUM rights. Underinsurance claims can involve policy conditions concerning notice, settlement with the tortfeasor, exhaustion of underlying coverage, and the SUM carrier’s rights. New York Insurance Law § 3420 provides that SUM coverage applies when the liability limits of another liable motor vehicle are lower than the applicable SUM limits, subject to the statute and policy. The statute also makes exhaustion of applicable underlying bodily injury liability coverage a condition of SUM payment. A settlement with the negligent driver should therefore be coordinated with any potential SUM claim rather than handled as though the two insurance issues are unrelated.

Does accepting No-Fault benefits reduce my pain-and-suffering settlement?

No-Fault benefits and the liability claim serve different purposes, although New York law prevents duplicate recovery of the same basic economic loss. No-Fault can pay qualifying medical expenses, lost earnings, and other basic economic loss without requiring the injured person first to prove negligence. The liability case can seek recoverable non-economic damages and economic losses beyond basic economic loss when the legal requirements are satisfied. Insurance Law § 3420 specifically recognizes that first-party payments for basic economic loss do not diminish liability coverage obligations for non-economic loss and economic loss in excess of basic economic loss. No-Fault paying medical bills therefore does not mean the negligent driver’s insurer gets to treat pain and suffering as already compensated.

Does New York’s serious injury threshold affect whether I should accept a settlement?

Yes, when the e-scooter claim falls under Insurance Law Article 51. The ability to prove a statutory serious injury can dramatically affect the value of the pain-and-suffering claim. New York amended its motor vehicle laws in 2026. The current serious-injury definition no longer contains the former 90/180-day category. New York DFS states that the reforms took effect on May 26, 2026, and apply to actions and proceedings commenced on or after that date. The current categories include injuries such as fracture, significant disfigurement, permanent loss of use, permanent consequential limitation, significant limitation, dismemberment, loss of a fetus, and death. A settlement evaluation should use the law applicable to the particular case rather than outdated serious-injury language still appearing on many websites.

How does comparative fault affect a settlement offer after the 2026 New York law change?

Comparative fault can now have particularly serious consequences in personal injury actions subject to Insurance Law Article 51. New York’s 2026 reforms adopted modified comparative negligence for those qualifying actions, while the traditional comparative framework still applies outside that statutory provision. That makes liability evidence even more important in an e-scooter-versus-motor-vehicle case. An insurer may argue that the rider was speeding, traveling against traffic, using a sidewalk, entering an intersection improperly, or otherwise contributing to the collision. Those allegations should not simply be accepted because an adjuster assigns a percentage. Video, witnesses, traffic laws, vehicle damage, GPS information, and accident reconstruction may materially change the allocation of fault and therefore the settlement value.

Can the insurer reduce its offer because I was not wearing a helmet?

The legal effect depends on the rider’s age and circumstances, and insurers should not be allowed to use helmet use as a generic excuse to discount every e-scooter claim. New York’s e-scooter statute requires helmets for 16- and 17-year-old riders. Importantly, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1286 expressly provides that failure to comply with that helmet requirement does not constitute contributory negligence or assumption of risk and cannot bar or diminish recovery in a personal injury or wrongful death action. For other riders and injury circumstances, causation remains important. A helmet argument has little logical relevance to a broken ankle caused when a turning car strikes a scooter. Settlement value should be based on legally and medically relevant evidence, not stereotypes about scooter riders.

Can the insurance company reduce the offer because I was outside the bike lane?

Being outside a bike lane does not automatically establish negligence. New York’s e-scooter statutes address roadway positioning and bike-lane use but also recognize circumstances in which riders may need to leave the normal position to avoid unsafe conditions, vehicles, pedestrians, surface hazards, or other dangers. Evaluate the accident in context. A rider may have moved outside the bike lane because a delivery truck, construction, debris, an opening car door, or another hazard blocked it. An insurer’s settlement reduction should be tested against what actually happened and the law that applied, not based on a photograph showing the scooter outside a bike lane after the collision.

Should I settle if the insurance company says I was partly at fault?

Not merely because the carrier says so; fault allegations are negotiating positions until evidence supports them or the legal process determines them. The carrier may rely almost entirely on its insured’s version of the collision. Surveillance footage, an independent witness, vehicle damage, traffic-camera information, or deposition testimony may later establish a much stronger liability case for the rider. Under current New York law, comparative fault can have major consequences in qualifying Article 51 actions, making an unsupported allocation especially important to challenge. A settlement should reflect a realistic assessment of litigation risk, not whatever percentage an adjuster chooses during an early telephone call.

Can a preexisting injury reduce the insurance company’s offer?

Yes. Insurers frequently discount claims involving prior injuries or degenerative conditions, but a preexisting condition does not automatically defeat the case. The real question is what the e-scooter accident caused. A rider may have experienced occasional back discomfort before the crash but worked full time, required no surgery, and had no significant functional limitations. If the collision produces new neurological symptoms, requires extensive treatment or surgery, or causes a substantial worsening, the aggravation can still support damages. Prior records should be evaluated, not hidden. When they demonstrate that the client’s condition and functioning materially changed after the accident, they can actually help distinguish the new injury from what existed before.

Will a gap in treatment cause the insurer to make a lower offer?

It can. Insurance companies frequently use unexplained treatment gaps to argue that the claimant recovered or that later symptoms are unrelated to the accident. A gap can have a legitimate explanation. No-Fault benefits may have been denied. A physician may have recommended stopping physical therapy. The client may have lost insurance or been medically unable to undergo a procedure. The reason should be documented accurately. A legitimate gap can be explained. An unexplained gap combined with claims of continuous severe disability gives the defense a much stronger argument. Treatment decisions should always be based on medical need, not settlement strategy.

Should I accept an offer before my lost wages are fully calculated?

Not without understanding both past lost earnings and any reasonably provable future earning loss. A delivery rider, construction worker, healthcare employee, or other physically demanding worker may eventually return to employment but remain unable to perform the same work. The resulting diminished earning capacity can extend for years.   Gig workers may require delivery-app records, 1099s, tax returns, bank records, and earnings histories to establish the loss. Traditional employees may use W-2s, payroll records, employer verification, and benefit information.  A settlement that reimburses six months of missed pay but ignores a permanent reduction in earning ability may significantly undervalue the economic claim.

Should future medical expenses be included in the settlement?

Yes, when competent medical evidence establishes reasonably anticipated future treatment related to the accident. Future expenses can include surgery, injections, physical therapy, medication, specialist care, diagnostic testing, rehabilitation, medical equipment, home assistance, or other treatment. Catastrophic injuries may require a formal life-care plan. Once the case is settled, the defendant generally does not remain responsible for future bills covered by the release. Those anticipated costs should therefore be evaluated before settlement. The more significant the future medical needs, the more dangerous it can be to settle based only on bills already incurred.

What happens to Medicare or Medicaid when an e-scooter case settles?

Potential Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement obligations must be investigated and properly addressed as part of settlement. Government benefit programs can have reimbursement rights concerning accident-related medical expenses they paid. The defendant’s agreement to a settlement does not eliminate those obligations. This is one reason the gross settlement amount is different from the client’s net recovery. Before distribution, you must identify, evaluate, and resolve applicable liens and reimbursement claims under the law. Clients should not decide whether an offer is acceptable solely by looking at the gross number without understanding what must be paid from the settlement.

Can my health insurance company claim part of my settlement?

Potentially. Whether a private health insurer has enforceable reimbursement rights depends on the particular plan, governing law, plan language, and payments involved. Some plans may assert liens or contractual reimbursement rights for accident-related treatment. Others may have different limitations. Please review those claims rather than accepting them at the amount demanded. At the same time, they should not be ignored when calculating what the client will actually receive. An intelligent settlement analysis estimates the likely net recovery after fees, expenses, and valid reimbursement obligations.

How much will I actually receive from the settlement?

Your net recovery is the amount remaining after applicable attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, liens, reimbursement obligations, and other authorized deductions are resolved. That number can differ substantially from the gross settlement. For example, a settlement involving substantial Medicare, Medicaid, workers’ compensation, or health-plan payments may require significant lien resolution before distribution. This does not necessarily mean those amounts reduce the case value dollar for dollar. Some medical or benefit payments may themselves form part of the damages or be addressed through applicable legal rules.   Before final settlement, the client should receive a meaningful explanation of the expected net recovery, not just the headline settlement figure.

Can medical liens sometimes be negotiated?

Sometimes, depending on the type of lien, governing law, contractual rights, and circumstances. Different liens operate under different rules. Medicare, Medicaid, workers’ compensation, ERISA plans, private health insurance, medical providers, and litigation funding arrangements should not be treated as though they all have identical rights.   Settlement preparation includes identifying each claim, verifying the amount, determining whether it relates to accident treatment, and evaluating whether reduction or compromise is legally available. Reducing a valid lien can materially increase the client’s net recovery, but no lawyer should promise that every lien can or will be reduced.

Should I accept a settlement because I urgently need money?

Financial pressure is understandable, but it can put an injured person at a significant negotiating disadvantage if it leads to acceptance of an inadequate settlement.  Insurance companies know that injured people may be unable to work while rent, medical expenses, and ordinary household bills continue. A quick payment can therefore appear more attractive than its actual value.  The problem is finality. Spending a settlement quickly does not change the fact that the release may extinguish a claim involving years of future losses.  The settlement decision should consider immediate financial needs, but those needs should not prevent an honest evaluation of what you are giving up.

Will hiring a lawyer automatically make the insurance company increase its offer?

No lawyer can guarantee that an insurer will increase an offer simply because counsel becomes involved. What can change the insurer’s evaluation is evidence, legal analysis, insurance investigation, damages documentation, and credible readiness to litigate. A lawyer can identify additional defendants, obtain video, investigate commercial insurance, develop medical proof, calculate future damages, preserve SUM rights, and challenge unsupported comparative-fault allegations. An insurer has less reason to increase an offer when it believes the claimant will eventually accept whatever is available. Trial preparation changes that calculation because the carrier must evaluate what could happen if it presents the case to a jury.

What if the insurer refuses to increase its offer?

When negotiations reach an impasse, and the offer does not fairly reflect the evidence, litigation may be necessary. Filing a lawsuit allows formal discovery, depositions, subpoenas, expert disclosure, motion practice, and ultimately trial. Evidence unavailable during informal claims handling may emerge once defendants must participate in discovery. A driver’s deposition can expose inconsistencies. Commercial records may establish negligence. Medical experts can address permanency and causation. Litigation does not guarantee a larger recovery, but an insurer’s refusal to make a fair pre-suit offer does not determine what a case is ultimately worth.

Can filing a lawsuit cause the settlement offer to increase?

Yes, in some cases, because litigation can strengthen the evidence and increase the insurer’s risk, but filing suit does not automatically increase value. The case may become stronger after surveillance is obtained, the defendant is deposed, medical permanency becomes clear, or an expert establishes future economic losses. The insurer may then reassess its exposure. The opposite is also possible. Discovery can reveal damaging evidence or weaknesses. A lawsuit is therefore not a bargaining trick. It is the process used when a claim requires formal discovery and judicial resolution to establish its full value.

Should I settle before depositions?

Sometimes, but only when the available evidence already permits an informed valuation and the offer fairly reflects the risks of continuing litigation. Depositions can substantially alter settlement leverage. A defendant may make important admissions. A company witness may reveal inadequate procedures. The plaintiff’s testimony may demonstrate credibility and the severity of the injuries. When liability remains heavily disputed, settling before depositions may mean accepting a discount before the strongest evidence emerges.   When liability is already indisputable, and damages are well documented, waiting solely for a deposition may provide little additional benefit.

Should I settle before trial?

A strong settlement can be appropriate at any stage, including immediately before or even during trial, if it fairly accounts for the likely benefits and risks of proceeding. Trial introduces uncertainty. A jury can award more than the settlement offer, less than the offer, or nothing if liability or another legal issue is decided against the plaintiff. Settlement provides certainty. Trial provides an opportunity to seek a verdict based on the full evidence. The decision belongs to the client after receiving informed advice about liability, damages, comparative fault, legal issues, insurance limits, expected trial evidence, and the realistic range of possible outcomes.

Is the highest settlement offer always the best outcome?

Not necessarily when the comparison ignores liens, additional claims, release terms, timing, or other rights. One offer may require releasing multiple parties while another resolves only one defendant. A proposed settlement could jeopardize SUM rights if handled incorrectly. Different lien consequences can also affect the net amount. The proper comparison is not simply “$500,000 versus $450,000.” It is what the client receives, what claims are ending, what rights remain, and what risks are eliminated. Settlement documents matter almost as much as the headline number.

How long do I have to decide whether to accept a settlement offer?

That depends on the offer’s terms, litigation status, and circumstances. Some demands or offers have stated deadlines, while others remain open until withdrawn or replaced. You should not let artificial pressure replace analysis. At the same time, genuine policy-limit opportunities, court conferences, trial schedules, or changing litigation circumstances can make timing important. Evaluate the offer promptly, but prompt evaluation does not mean uninformed acceptance.

Can the insurance company withdraw its offer?

In many circumstances, an unaccepted settlement offer can be withdrawn or changed before a binding settlement is formed, subject to applicable law and the particular circumstances. This is one reason settlement strategy requires judgment. Rejecting an offer carries some risk that it will not remain available indefinitely. That does not mean a claimant should accept an inadequate offer out of fear. It means the decision should compare the existing offer with the realistic expected value and risks of continuing the case.

Who makes the final decision whether to settle my e-scooter case?

The client makes the settlement decision. The attorney’s role is to investigate the case, explain the offer, evaluate its strengths and weaknesses, estimate the risks of continuing, and recommend a course of action. Before deciding, a client should understand the gross settlement, anticipated fees and expenses, known liens, expected net recovery, claims being released, and meaningful risks. The lawyer should never accept a settlement simply because it is convenient. Likewise, the client should receive candid advice when an offer is strong and continuing litigation creates substantial risk. The goal is an informed decision, not blind acceptance or automatic rejection.

How does Greenstein & Pittari, LLP evaluate an e-scooter settlement offer?

We compare the offer against what the evidence can realistically support and what the client is giving up by accepting it. That evaluation includes liability, comparative fault, medical diagnoses, surgery, permanency, future care, lost earnings, earning capacity, pain and suffering, serious-injury issues when applicable, insurance limits, additional defendants, SUM coverage, liens, litigation expenses, venue, witness quality, and trial risk. We also examine what is still unknown. If surgery remains undecided, a critical video has not been obtained, policy-limit information is incomplete, or another defendant may provide additional insurance, those uncertainties matter. An insurance company’s offer is one piece of information. It is not our definition of the case’s value.

Why Choose Greenstein & Pittari, LLP Before Accepting an NYC E-Scooter Accident Settlement?

A settlement ends uncertainty, but it can also end valuable legal rights. The difference between a fair settlement and an inadequate one may depend on issues an injured rider does not yet know exist: another insurance policy, future surgery, a permanent work restriction, SUM coverage, an undiscovered commercial defendant, a reimbursement claim, or evidence that substantially strengthens liability.

Greenstein & Pittari, LLP has decades of experience representing injury victims throughout New York and extensive experience litigating complex personal injury cases. We conduct thorough investigations before recommending settlement, including evaluating liability, medical evidence, future treatment, economic losses, insurance coverage, liens, comparative fault, and every potentially responsible party. When appropriate, we pursue claims involving governmental entities, institutions, commercial companies, rideshare vehicles, delivery operators, manufacturers, and other defendants whose involvement can change the available recovery.

We prepare cases with litigation in mind because an insurance company is more likely to take a claim seriously when it knows the attorneys handling it are prepared to prove the case. That means preserving evidence, obtaining medical proof, investigating coverage, conducting depositions, retaining appropriate experts, and aggressively litigating when a carrier refuses to offer fair compensation.

At the same time, our representation is compassionate and personal. We explain settlement offers in plain terms, discuss the advantages and risks of accepting or rejecting them, and help clients understand the difference between the gross settlement and what they can reasonably expect to receive after applicable fees, expenses, and liens. Our English- and Spanish-speaking staff assists injured people throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Staten Island, and surrounding New York communities.

We offer free consultations, 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.

Do not let an insurance company decide what your injuries are worth simply because it was the first party to put a number on them. Before signing a release, make sure you understand your medical future, your economic losses, the insurance available, and exactly which legal rights you are giving up.

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 evaluate the settlement offer, investigate available insurance, determine whether additional sources of compensation exist, assess future medical and economic damages, protect applicable SUM rights, address liens and reimbursement claims, and fight for the full compensation your case can support.