Car Accident Claims Involving Fall Weather Conditions in New York City

As leaves accumulate on New York City streets and autumn rains drench roadways, car accident risks escalate dramatically. Many drivers underestimate how quickly fall weather transforms familiar routes into hazardous conditions. Rain reduces tire traction, wet leaves create slick surfaces comparable to ice, and earlier sunsets mean more commuters drive in darkness or blinding glare. These seasonal changes contributed to our client Connie C.’s severe injuries when her vehicle hydroplaned during a rainstorm, a case that ultimately resulted in a $4.4 million recovery.

At Dansker & Aspromonte Associates LLP, our attorneys have represented numerous clients injured in weather-related collisions throughout New York City. We understand that fall weather accidents involve complex liability questions—determining whether driver negligence, municipal road maintenance failures, or infrastructure defects contributed to the crash. This article examines how autumn conditions impact accident rates in NYC, explains the legal considerations specific to weather-related claims, and outlines the evidence needed to establish liability when rain or road hazards cause collisions. We’ve organized fall hazard data and liability patterns in comparison tables below to help you understand how these accidents differ from dry-weather collisions.

How Fall Weather Impacts Car Accident Rates in New York City

According to NHTSA/FHWA data, rain contributes to about 10% of all vehicle crashes in the U.S. and roughly 9-10% of crash-related injuries.  When days shorten and leaves wet the pavement, these conditions can combine to create a heightened risk of driving hazards. Citywide data confirms this pattern. Summer and early fall months consistently show the highest collision rates across all NYC boroughs, with September 2021 recording 2,850 crashes in Brooklyn alone, and Manhattan experiencing peak accidents in October that same year, with 1,482 collisions.

Weather and crash data from the Federal Highway Administration show that about 12 percent of all motor vehicle crashes in the U.S. are weather-related, resulting in roughly 745,000 crashes and 268,000 injuries each year. Of these weather-related crashes, about 77 percent occur during rain or mist, and wet pavement is involved in roughly 75 percent. Each year, an estimated 574,000 crashes occur during rainfall, causing approximately 219,000 injuries and 2,800 fatalities nationwide (FHWA, 2024). In New York City, rain-soaked pavement and reduced visibility frequently contribute to rear-end and multi-vehicle collisions.

Our firm’s case experience reflects these statistics. Connie C. was driving home in a heavy rainstorm when her car suddenly entered a pond of standing water on the roadway, causing her vehicle to slide across multiple lanes and over an embankment. She suffered serious physical and psychological injuries. The case required proving that inadequate road drainage—not merely rain—created the dangerous condition. Similarly, we’ve represented clients injured when wet leaves on roadways caused loss of vehicle control, particularly on residential streets where property owners failed to clear storm drains.

Understanding seasonal patterns matters because they help establish that weather conditions were foreseeable. Insurance companies frequently argue that rain makes accidents “unavoidable,” but fall weather in NYC is predictable. Drivers and municipalities have obligations to prepare for these conditions. When accidents spike predictably each September and October, it demonstrates that reasonable precautions—slower speeds, proper vehicle maintenance, adequate road drainage—could have prevented many collisions.

The Five Most Dangerous Fall Road Hazards in NYC

Five weather-related conditions create elevated accident risks during NYC’s fall months, each involving distinct liability considerations and requiring specific evidence preservation strategies. The type of hazard determines which parties may be held responsible and what documentation strengthens your claim.

—

—

Each hazard requires different evidence strategies. Hydroplaning cases demand proof of standing water and inadequate drainage, often requiring engineering experts to analyze road design. Wet leaf accidents may involve municipal liability if the city failed to clear storm drains, or property owner liability if leaves from private trees blocked drainage systems. We’ve successfully argued that cities have notice of recurring drainage problems when accidents occur repeatedly at the same location during fall rains.

Reduced visibility accidents require demonstrating that the at-fault driver failed to use headlights appropriately, followed too closely for conditions, or drove at unsafe speeds. Sun glare cases—which spike during fall when sunrise and sunset align with rush hour commutes—depend on proving the driver could have used sun visors, adjusted route timing, or slowed to compensate for temporary blindness. Equipment failure cases involve maintenance records showing the driver knew or should have known their wipers or tires were inadequate for wet conditions.

Successful weather-related claims require showing that hazardous conditions contributed to the crash and that the other driver failed to adjust their behavior accordingly. Weather by itself doesn’t create liability—but failing to drive prudently in poor weather conditions does. See Stringari v. Peerless Importers, 304 A.D.2d 413 (1st Dept. 2003).

Understanding Hydroplaning Accidents and Liability

Hydroplaning occurs when water pressure causes tires to lose contact with pavement, typically at speeds above 35 mph on roads with standing water—a condition that affects liability differently than dry-road accidents. When a tire encounters more water than its tread grooves can channel away, a thin layer of water builds between the tire and road surface. The vehicle essentially floats, eliminating the driver’s ability to steer, brake, or accelerate effectively. This phenomenon happens suddenly and can occur even at lower speeds if water depth and tire wear create the right conditions.

New York City’s infrastructure creates numerous hydroplaning risk zones. Highway sections with poor drainage, roads where catch basins are blocked by debris, and areas where pavement settling creates low spots all accumulate standing water during rainfall. The FDR Drive, sections of the West Side Highway, and various parkway underpasses are known problem areas where water pools after heavy rain. Residential streets with clogged storm drains—often blocked by fall leaves—also create hydroplaning hazards at intersections and mid-block locations.

Liability in hydroplaning cases frequently involves multiple parties. The driver may bear responsibility for traveling too fast for conditions or operating a vehicle with inadequate tire tread. However, municipalities can share liability when drainage system failures create standing water on roadways. Our firm evaluates whether the city had notice of recurring flooding at the accident location, whether storm drains were properly maintained, and whether road design contributed to water accumulation. Engineering experts examine drainage capacity, road grade, and catch basin placement to determine if infrastructure deficiencies caused the hazardous condition.

Our client Connie C.’s case illustrates these liability complexities. During a heavy rainstorm, her car suddenly drove into a pond of water on the roadway, causing the vehicle to slide across multiple lanes of traffic and over an embankment. She suffered serious physical and psychological injuries requiring extensive treatment. Investigation revealed that inadequate road drainage had created a recurring problem at that location. The case required proving that while rain was a factor, the city’s failure to address known drainage deficiencies transformed a manageable weather event into a catastrophic accident. The $4.4 million settlement reflected both the severity of her injuries and the established municipal responsibility for maintaining safe roadways.

Hydroplaning cases often involve shared liability between drivers and municipalities, requiring thorough investigation of road design, drainage systems, and maintenance records to maximize compensation. Time is critical because evidence of standing water disappears quickly after rainfall, and municipalities must be notified of potential claims under strict deadlines.

How Weather Conditions Affect Fault Determination in NYC

New York’s comparative negligence system allows weather to reduce but not elimination of liability, meaning drivers must prove they adjusted their behavior for conditions while the at-fault party failed to do so. Under this framework, multiple parties can share responsibility for an accident, with damages reduced proportionally based on each party’s degree of fault. Weather introduces complexity because it creates a heightened duty of care for all drivers while potentially serving as a mitigating factor for those who acted reasonably.

Courts recognize that rain, fog, or wet leaves don’t eliminate a driver’s obligation to operate safely. Instead, adverse weather increases the standard of reasonable care. Drivers must reduce speed, increase following distance, ensure proper visibility through windshield wipers and headlights, and sometimes avoid travel altogether when conditions become extreme. When a driver fails to adjust behavior for observable weather conditions, that failure establishes negligence. The critical question becomes whether the driver’s conduct was reasonable given the circumstances they faced.

Insurance companies deploy several arguments to minimize payouts in weather-related cases. The “Act of God” defense claims that extraordinary weather made the accident unavoidable, regardless of anyone’s actions. We counter this by demonstrating that fall rain in New York City is entirely foreseeable and manageable. Unless weather reaches truly exceptional levels—such as hurricane conditions or unprecedented flooding—drivers have a duty to adjust their behavior. Insurance adjusters also argue that claimants share substantial fault for traveling in bad weather or failing to react appropriately. Our response involves proving through weather reports, traffic camera footage, and witness testimony that conditions were challenging but navigable, and that the at-fault party’s specific actions—excessive speed, inadequate following distance, or distracted driving—caused the collision.

Evidence becomes paramount in weather-related fault disputes. We obtain official weather reports from the National Weather Service showing precipitation levels, visibility measurements, and temperature data at the time of the accident. Traffic camera footage can demonstrate whether the at-fault driver was traveling at reasonable speeds for conditions. Dashcam recordings from vehicles involved or nearby provide objective evidence of road conditions and driver behavior. Accident reconstruction experts analyze skid marks, impact angles, and vehicle damage to determine speeds and stopping distances, then compare those findings against what would be reasonable in wet conditions.

Our experience shows that many weather-related accidents involve clear negligence despite challenging conditions. A driver who rear-ends another vehicle in the rain was following too closely. A driver who loses control on wet leaves was traveling too fast for the visible road conditions. A driver who struck a pedestrian in heavy rain failed to ensure adequate visibility before proceeding. Weather may have contributed to the accident, but it rarely excuses the failure to exercise reasonable caution.

Successfully navigating weather-related fault determination requires demonstrating that, while conditions were challenging, the other party’s failure to exercise reasonable caution under those circumstances caused the collision. This analysis protects your right to compensation while acknowledging that the weather was a factor in the accident.

Proving Negligence in Rainy Condition Accidents

Proving negligence in a rain-related accident requires showing that adverse weather created foreseeable hazards and that the defendant failed to adjust their driving accordingly. The plaintiff must then connect that failure to the resulting crash by demonstrating that the defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of the accident — even if the weather itself also played a role. In New York, multiple factors can contribute to a collision, but a driver remains liable when their negligence is one of the causes that produced the harm.

Evidence Preservation After a Weather-Related Accident

The following steps must be taken promptly to build a strong weather-related accident claim:

1. Document weather conditions immediately
   • Why: Conditions change rapidly after rainfall ends; real-time documentation proves severity.
   • Outcome: Timestamped photos and videos that insurance companies cannot dispute.
2. Photograph road surface and standing water
   • Why: Shows drainage issues or hazardous ponding conditions.
   • Outcome: Establishes contributory factors beyond driver control, supporting municipal liability claims.
3. Obtain official weather reports
   • Why: Third-party verification of precipitation levels, visibility, and temperature.
   • Outcome: Credible baseline for expert testimony that eliminates dispute about conditions.
4. Preserve dashcam or traffic camera footage
   • Why: Shows actual driving behavior in weather conditions.
   • Outcome: Objective evidence of speed, following distance, and visibility before impact.
5. Request city maintenance records
   • Why: Reveals known drainage or road defect issues at the accident location.
   • Outcome: Establishes municipal liability if the city had notice of recurring problems.
6. Secure witness statements immediately
   • Why: Memory fades quickly; perceptions of weather severity vary between observers.
   • Outcome: Corroborating testimony about conditions and driver behavior at the time of the collision.

These documentation requirements exceed what is needed for typical dry-road accidents. Weather creates ambiguity that insurance companies exploit. Without comprehensive evidence, adjusters argue that conditions made the accident unavoidable or that you share equal responsibility for traveling in bad weather. Detailed documentation eliminates these arguments by showing exactly what conditions existed and how the at-fault party’s conduct fell below the standard of reasonable care.

Expert witnesses play an enhanced role in weather-related cases. Accident reconstructionists calculate whether stopping distances and vehicle speeds were appropriate for wet pavement. Meteorologists testify about whether rainfall intensity, visibility, or other conditions were foreseeable and manageable. Engineering experts evaluate whether road design or maintenance failures contributed to standing water or other hazards. These experts transform raw evidence into persuasive arguments that weather required caution, not recklessness, from the at-fault driver.

Weather-related accidents require more extensive documentation than dry-road collisions, but thorough evidence gathering significantly strengthens claims by eliminating the “unavoidable accident” defense. The investment in comprehensive evidence collection typically produces substantially higher settlements because insurance companies cannot credibly argue that weather alone caused the collision.

NYC Infrastructure Issues That Worsen Fall Weather Accidents

New York City’s aging drainage systems, uneven pavement, and delayed street sweeping during fall months create preventable hazards that can establish municipal liability alongside driver negligence. While rain itself is a natural occurrence, the city’s failure to maintain infrastructure that safely manages rainfall transforms predictable weather into dangerous road conditions.

Drainage system inadequacies represent the most common infrastructure problem contributing to fall accidents. Many NYC storm drains date to the early 20th century and lack capacity for modern rainfall volumes. When autumn leaves block catch basins, even moderate rain overwhelms the system. Water accumulates at intersections and in roadway depressions, creating hydroplaning hazards. Our firm has handled multiple cases where accidents occurred at locations with documented histories of flooding complaints. When the city receives repeated reports of standing water at a specific intersection but fails to address the drainage problem, that establishes constructive notice that supports liability claims.

Pavement conditions deteriorate significantly during fall and winter cycles. Potholes that form over winter often go unrepaired until spring, while fall temperature fluctuations cause pavement to crack and settle. These defects trap water, creating slick spots that are invisible to drivers until their tires lose traction. Uneven pavement also prevents proper water runoff, causing pooling in areas where road design should channel water to drains. We’ve successfully argued that cities must prioritize pothole repair before winter weather arrives, particularly on high-traffic routes where defects predictably cause accidents during the first significant rainfall.

Street sweeping schedules directly impact fall accident rates. Leaves that accumulate on roadways become extraordinarily slippery when wet, creating traction conditions comparable to ice. Property owners have obligations to prevent leaves from their trees from blocking storm drains, but the city also has duties to conduct timely street sweeping. When budget constraints or staffing shortages delay sweeping, leaf accumulation creates foreseeable hazards. Our investigation in these cases focuses on whether the city followed its own maintenance schedules and whether leaf accumulation at the accident location was visible and persistent enough to constitute constructive notice.

Traffic signal and street lighting maintenance also affects fall accident rates. Earlier sunsets mean more commuters drive during twilight and darkness. Malfunctioning traffic signals or inadequate street lighting at intersections increases collision risk, particularly in the rain when visibility is already reduced. We examine maintenance records to determine whether the city responded appropriately to reported outages and whether lighting levels meet current safety standards for high-traffic areas.

Claims against New York City for infrastructure-related accidents face procedural hurdles that don’t apply to claims against private parties. The city must receive notice of the claim within a compressed timeframe under §50-e of the General Municipal Law. This notice requirement exists to allow the city to investigate while conditions and evidence remain fresh. Missing this deadline typically bars any recovery, regardless of how clear the city’s liability may be. Additionally, the city enjoys certain immunities for discretionary decisions about resource allocation and maintenance priorities. However, once the city has notice of a specific hazard and fails to address it within a reasonable time, those immunities erode.

Infrastructure-related claims against NYC require swift action due to accelerated filing requirements, making immediate consultation with experienced counsel critical for preserving municipal liability claims. Our firm has established relationships with engineers and infrastructure experts who can rapidly assess whether road conditions contributed to accidents and whether the city had sufficient notice to establish liability.

Insurance Company Tactics in Weather-Related Claims

Insurance adjusters routinely classify weather-related accidents as “unavoidable” or argue comparative negligence exceeded reasonable percentages, tactics designed to minimize payouts despite valid liability. Understanding these strategies allows accident victims to counter them effectively and preserve their right to full compensation.

The “Act of God” defense represents the most common tactic. Adjusters argue that extraordinary weather made the accident inevitable, regardless of how the insured driver behaved. They characterize rain as an unforeseeable event that no driver could have avoided. This argument fails in almost all fall weather scenarios in New York City. Rain is entirely predictable during the autumn months. Weather forecasts give a warning. Drivers have multiple options for adjusting their behavior—reducing speed, increasing following distance, using headlights, or delaying travel. Unless the weather truly reaches catastrophic levels that make travel impossible, the Act of God defense should not prevent recovery.

Comparative negligence arguments in weather cases often focus on the claimant’s decision to drive in bad weather. Adjusters suggest that by choosing to travel during rainfall, you assumed the risk of an accident and therefore share substantial fault. This argument misrepresents the law. Driving in the rain is neither negligent nor unusual. The question is whether you drove reasonably given the conditions you faced. If you were traveling at appropriate speeds, maintaining safe distances, and exercising proper caution, your decision to drive in the rain does not establish contributory negligence. We counter these arguments with evidence showing you acted reasonably while the at-fault party did not.

Documentation requests serve dual purposes for insurance companies. Legitimate requests seek evidence about the accident—police reports, medical records, and repair estimates. However, adjusters also request extensive documentation, hoping to discover information they can use against your claim. They may ask for maintenance records on your vehicle, hoping to find deferred repairs that they can blame for the accident. They request exhaustive medical histories searching for pre-existing conditions to argue your injuries aren’t accident-related. They seek employment records to dispute lost wage claims. While some requests are reasonable, others are designed to burden claimants and uncover ammunition for denials.

These broad document requests can also be a delay tactic. By slowing the process, insurers hope claimants will give up or accept a low offer. Adjusters may claim files are missing, ask for the same records multiple times, or insist on unnecessary medical exams to drag things out. Some make small settlement offers that require signing away rights or demand repeated recorded statements meant to trip people up. These tactics are meant to stall and protect the insurer’s bottom line.

Early settlement pressure increases dramatically in weather-related cases. Adjusters know these claims are more difficult to prove and that claimants may fear protracted litigation. They make initial offers shortly after the accident, often while you’re still being treated for injuries and before the full extent of damages is known. These offers are almost always inadequate. They may cover vehicle repairs and initial medical bills, but ignore future treatment needs, lost earning capacity, and pain and suffering. Once you accept a settlement, you typically cannot pursue additional compensation even if your injuries prove more serious than initially apparent.

Recorded statements represent another common tactic. Adjusters contact claimants shortly after accidents, requesting recorded statements about what happened. They present this as a routine requirement. In reality, recorded statements give adjusters opportunities to get you to say something they can use against you. They ask leading questions designed to elicit admissions of fault or to minimize the severity of weather conditions. Anything you say becomes part of the claim file and can be used to deny or reduce your compensation. Our standard advice is to decline recorded statements until you’ve consulted with an attorney who can prepare you for the types of questions adjusters ask.

Some weather claims do face legitimate challenges. If conditions were genuinely extreme—such as flooding that made roads impassable or visibility reduced to near zero—and the driver was exercising reasonable caution, recovery may be limited. Heavy rain alone doesn’t meet that threshold, but there are circumstances where weather truly does overwhelm even careful drivers. We provide honest assessments about claim strength, including situations where weather may limit potential recovery.

Experienced legal representation counters insurance tactics by presenting comprehensive evidence showing weather was foreseeable and manageable, not an excuse for negligent driving. We’ve handled hundreds of weather-related claims and recognize the patterns adjusters follow. By anticipating their arguments and building evidence that directly refutes those defenses, we protect clients from tactics designed to minimize or eliminate valid claims.

Compensation Available in Fall Weather Accident Cases

Weather-related accidents often result in severe injuries due to reduced vehicle control and higher impact forces, with compensation covering medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, and in some cases, municipal liability for infrastructure failures. The severity of injuries in rain-related collisions typically exceeds dry-road accidents because drivers have less ability to brake or maneuver defensively when hydroplaning or skidding on wet surfaces.

Economic damages compensate for measurable financial losses resulting from the accident. Medical expenses represent the largest component in most cases—emergency room treatment, surgery, hospitalization, rehabilitation, physical therapy, prescription medications, and medical equipment. Weather-related accidents frequently cause spinal injuries, traumatic brain injuries, and fractures that require extensive treatment over months or years. Lost income includes wages missed during recovery and, in cases of permanent disability, the difference between pre-accident earning capacity and post-injury earnings. Property damage encompasses vehicle repair or replacement costs, though these typically represent a small fraction of total damages in serious injury cases.

Non-economic damages address harm that cannot be measured by receipts or pay stubs. Pain and suffering compensation reflects the physical discomfort and limitations caused by injuries. Emotional distress damages cover anxiety, depression, and psychological trauma resulting from the accident. Loss of enjoyment of life applies when injuries prevent you from participating in activities you previously enjoyed—sports, hobbies, time with family. In cases involving disfigurement or permanent disability, non-economic damages can substantially exceed economic losses because they address lifelong impacts on quality of life.

In rare cases, a jury may also award punitive damages when an insurer or defendant’s conduct goes beyond negligence and shows willful or reckless disregard for others’ safety. For example, if an insurance company knowingly delayed or denied a valid claim to pressure the victim into settling for less, a court could find that behavior malicious enough to justify punitive damages. Likewise, a driver who causes a serious crash while intentionally speeding through flooded streets or ignoring obvious safety warnings could face punitive liability. These damages are meant not to compensate the victim, but to punish extreme misconduct and deter similar actions in the future.

Our firm secured $4.4 million for a client whose vehicle hydroplaned during a rainstorm, resulting in severe physical and psychological injuries. The case involved proving both driver negligence—excessive speed for conditions—and inadequate road drainage that created standing water. The settlement reflected multiple damage categories: over $800,000 in past and future medical expenses, substantial lost earning capacity because injuries prevented her from returning to her profession, and significant pain and suffering damages for ongoing physical limitations and psychological trauma. The municipal liability component was critical because it expanded the pool of available insurance coverage beyond what the at-fault driver’s policy provided.

—

—

New York’s No-Fault insurance system requires that your own insurance policy cover basic economic losses up to the policy limits, regardless of who caused the accident. No-Fault benefits pay medical expenses and a portion of lost wages without requiring proof of the other driver’s fault. However, No-Fault coverage has limitations. It does not cover pain and suffering, full wage replacement, or damages exceeding policy limits. To recover these additional damages, your injuries must meet New York’s “serious injury” threshold, which includes categories such as death, dismemberment, significant disfigurement, fracture, permanent loss of use of a body organ or member, permanent consequential limitation of use of a body organ or body member, significant limitation of use of a body function or system, or a medically determined injury or impairment of a non-permanent nature which prevents substantially all of the material acts which constitute usual and customary daily activities for a substantial period of time. (see N.Y. Ins. Law § 5102(d)).

Weather-related accidents frequently produce injuries that satisfy this threshold. The violent forces involved in hydroplaning collisions, the inability to brake effectively on wet roads, and the tendency for weather accidents to involve multiple vehicles at highway speeds all contribute to injury severity. Our experience shows that rain-related collisions produce higher rates of spinal injuries, traumatic brain injuries, and fractures compared to similar-speed impacts on dry roads. These injury patterns support substantial compensation claims that extend well beyond No-Fault coverage limits.

Additional case results from our firm demonstrate the compensation available in weather-related accidents. We secured $2.4 million for a client whose bicycle struck an improperly maintained NYC traffic control pressure sensor embedded in the roadway while riding in wet conditions, causing serious fractures. We obtained $7.8 million for a pedestrian struck by a police scooter during rainy conditions in Battery Park, resulting in severe injuries. We recovered $31 million for a police officer injured when her patrol car was involved in a collision during adverse weather, causing life-altering injuries. Each case required proving that the weather contributed to but did not excuse the negligent conduct that caused the collision.

Fall weather accidents often justify substantial compensation due to injury severity and the complex liability analysis required to prove both weather contribution and negligent failure to adjust driving behavior. Insurance policy limits, municipal liability, and multiple at-fault parties can all contribute to recovery, making a thorough investigation of all potential sources of compensation essential to maximizing awards.

Frequently Asked Questions About Fall Weather Accident Claims

Contact Our Experienced NYC Car Accident Attorneys Today

Fall weather in New York City transforms daily commutes into high-risk drives. Rain, wet leaves, low visibility, and inadequate drainage create a dangerous combination—but none of these conditions excuses negligence. As this guide shows, weather rarely stands alone as the cause of a crash; liability rests with the party that failed to adjust for the conditions or maintain safe roadways.

Insurance companies often use the weather to downplay claims. At Dansker & Aspromonte Associates LLP, we have decades of experience countering those tactics in complex, weather-related cases, including a $4.4 million recovery for a client injured in a hydroplaning accident. Our team knows how to document conditions, obtain maintenance records, and present the expert proof these cases demand.

Free consultation: If you were hurt in a rain-related or fall-weather crash, call (212) 732-2929 or visit https://www.dandalaw.com/car-accident-lawyer/. We will review your case, explain your options, and outline a strategy to pursue the compensation you deserve.

Resources & References

NHTSA: Weather-Related Crash Statistics:
https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/driving-in-severe-weather

NYC Department of Transportation – Traffic Safety:
https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/safety-education.shtml

FHWA: Pavement and Road Weather Safety:
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/weather/roadimpact.htm

New York State DMV – Insurance Information:

https://dmv.ny.gov/insurance/get-insurance-information-after-a-crash-or-accident

NYC Open Data – Vehicle Collisions:
https://data.cityofnewyork.us/Public-Safety/NYC-Motor-Vehicle-Collisions/h9gi-nx95

National Weather Service NYC Forecast Office:
https://www.weather.gov/okx/

NYC Vision Zero program for traffic safety and fall accident prevention:
https://www.nyc.gov/visionzero

National Weather Service general guideline pages on driving in rain/hydroplaning risks:
https://www.weather.gov/safety/flood

Stringari v. Peerless Importers
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914799cadd7b049343faee1

New York Insurance Law § 5102(d)

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ISC/5102

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.