New York City Red-Light Accident Lawyer

When both drivers claim they had a green light, the case does not automatically become an unresolvable contest between two memories. Video, independent witnesses, vehicle movements, signal operation, physical evidence and other information may help establish which vehicle entered the intersection against the signal.

This is one of the most frustrating things that can happen after a serious intersection collision.

You remember seeing green. You entered the intersection expecting cross traffic to remain stopped. Another vehicle came through from the side and hit you.

Later, you learn that the other driver says their light was green too.

We do not assume that the case has become impossible because two people remember the signal differently. We look for evidence that can test both accounts.

That evidence may come from the intersection itself, surrounding buildings, other vehicles, independent witnesses or the physical collision. Sometimes a camera captures the signal directly. Sometimes it does not. A recording may instead show when cross traffic began moving, how a vehicle approached the intersection, whether it slowed before entering, or other facts that help establish the sequence.

A 2026 Manhattan case provides a useful example of why the evidence has to be evaluated carefully.

In Rosenfeld v. BM Islam, an e-scooter rider alleged that a taxi ran a red light at 51st Street and Lexington Avenue. Video footage existed. But the Appellate Division, First Department found that the video did not resolve liability because the traffic signal facing the taxi was not visible and the collision itself was not clearly depicted.

The lesson is not that video is unhelpful. It is that the existence of video and what the video actually proves are two different questions.

When the signal is disputed, we may look for:

• video showing either traffic signal or either vehicle’s approach;
• independent witnesses who saw the signal or watched the vehicles enter;
• the movement of surrounding traffic before and after the collision;
• photographs and video showing where the vehicles came to rest;
• damage patterns and points of impact;
• driver statements made at or after the scene;
• police observations and witness information;
• electronic vehicle information when it is available and relevant; and
• other evidence that helps establish the timing and sequence of the crash.

No single item is required in every case. The objective is to determine what the available evidence can reliably tell us rather than reducing the case to one driver’s word against another’s.

People often describe a collision by saying, “The light was changing.”

Legally, that description is incomplete. The color of the signal when the vehicle entered the intersection matters.

New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111 establishes different rules for green, yellow and red indications:

• Steady green: A driver may proceed straight or make an otherwise permitted turn, while yielding to traffic already lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk.
• Steady yellow: A driver may enter the intersection, but the signal warns that the green movement is ending or that red will immediately follow.
• Steady red: The driver generally must stop at the required location and remain stopped until an indication to proceed is shown.

That distinction is particularly important when someone says a driver “ran the light.”

A vehicle that entered while facing yellow did not enter against a red signal merely because the light turned red while the vehicle was already in the intersection. Conversely, a driver who approaches during yellow but does not cross into the intersection until after the signal becomes red presents a very different situation.

We therefore want to know when the vehicle actually entered—not simply what color the signal displayed after the collision.

A Red Arrow Controls the Movement It Points To

Section 1111 separately addresses red arrows. A driver facing a steady red arrow may not enter the intersection to make the movement indicated by that arrow unless another signal displayed at the same time permits a different movement.

This can matter in turning collisions where one driver insists that the intersection generally had a green indication but the particular turn being attempted was controlled by an arrow.

Right on Red Is Different in New York City

Drivers who learned to drive elsewhere can bring the wrong assumption into a New York City intersection.

New York’s general right-on-red rule expressly excludes cities with populations of one million or more unless local law authorizes the movement. In New York City, drivers should not assume that a right turn on red is permitted simply because it would ordinarily be allowed elsewhere in the state.

That NYC-specific rule can become important when a driver enters against a red signal while turning and collides with a pedestrian, cyclist, e-bike rider or vehicle that is lawfully moving through the intersection.

A photograph of two damaged vehicles in an intersection tells us where they eventually met. It may tell us very little about how they got there.

For that, we look backward.

Suppose one driver approaches with green while a vehicle on the cross street approaches the end of its signal cycle. Did that vehicle begin slowing? Did it maintain speed? Did the driver accelerate toward the intersection? When did the vehicle cross the stop line? Had traffic in the other direction already begun moving?

At the same time, we examine what the driver with the green signal could reasonably perceive.

Buildings, parked vehicles, buses and other traffic can restrict sight lines. A driver may enter on green with no reason to believe that cross traffic will continue through a red signal. If another vehicle suddenly appears from behind an obstruction or enters at speed, the driver with the right of way may have only moments to respond.

Having a green light does not relieve a driver of every obligation to use reasonable care. Section 1111 itself requires traffic proceeding on green to yield to traffic already lawfully within the intersection or adjacent crosswalk.

But reasonable care is judged from what was actually happening—not from the clarity available after the collision.

We want to know when the danger became apparent and what options still existed at that moment. Could the driver brake safely? Was there room to steer away without striking someone else? Was the other vehicle visible soon enough for any evasive maneuver to matter?

That analysis is especially important when an insurer argues that an injured driver “should have avoided” a vehicle that entered against the signal.

The familiar red-light crash involves two vehicles approaching from perpendicular streets: one enters on green while another enters against red.

That is only one configuration.

Common red-light collision patterns include:

• Entering after the signal has turned red. Cross traffic may already be moving when the violating vehicle enters, creating the potential for a severe side-impact collision.
• Trying to make the end of a signal cycle. The important distinction is whether the vehicle actually entered during yellow or crossed into the intersection only after red appeared.
• Turning against a red arrow. The driver makes a movement specifically prohibited by the arrow controlling that turn.
• Making an unauthorized right turn on red. This is particularly important in New York City, where drivers cannot simply rely on the general right-on-red rule that applies elsewhere.
• Striking a pedestrian, cyclist or e-bike rider. A person may already be crossing or moving lawfully through the intersection when the driver enters against red.
• Causing a secondary or multi-vehicle collision. The red-light runner may strike one vehicle and push it into another, or cause another driver to make an emergency maneuver that leads to a separate impact.

The person who violated the signal does not necessarily have to be the vehicle that physically struck you.

If a driver enters against red, hits another vehicle and sends that vehicle into you, we trace the collision sequence back to the movement that started it. The same analysis applies when a driver swerves to avoid the red-light runner and collides with another vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian.

That distinction becomes particularly important when several drivers and insurance companies are involved.

After an intersection crash, people understandably notice cameras.

If there is one mounted near the traffic signal, the immediate reaction is often relief: there must be a recording.

There may be. But first we need to identify what kind of camera it is and what it was designed to capture.

New York City’s automated red-light-camera program operates under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1111-a. The current law authorizes photo violation-monitoring devices at up to 600 intersections in the city.

Those enforcement cameras should not be confused with every other camera near an intersection. A camera may belong to NYC DOT, a private building, a store, a parking facility or another entity. It may monitor traffic conditions or building security. Its field of view may cover only one approach. It may capture a vehicle without capturing the signal. And recordings may be retained for very different periods of time.

The Rosenfeld case illustrates another important point: even when a collision is captured on video, the recording may not answer the particular question in dispute.

That is why we do not ask only whether a camera exists.

We ask what it recorded, from what angle, during what period, and what the recording can actually establish when considered with the rest of the evidence.