Key Takeaway
Legal analysis of People v Williams case examining how medical advances in HIV treatment affected criminal charges, reflecting broader changes in legal standards over time.
This article is part of our ongoing no-fault coverage, with 271 published articles analyzing no-fault issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
People v Williams, 2013 NY Slip Op 07636 (4th Dept. 2013) If you’re dealing with a no-fault insurance defense matter, an experienced attorney can help protect your rights.
The Court in Rochester reduced a depraved indifference reckless endangerment charge t0 a misdemeanor when it state that HIV is at best a chronic disease and not the life threatening monster it was when many of us were growing up. Not sure if this is evolution of devolution.
“We further conclude that the grand jury evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see Jennings, 69 NY2d at 114), also did not establish that defendant’s conduct presented a grave risk of death to the victim (see Penal Law § 120.25; Lynch, 95 NY2d at 247). The victim’s physician, an infectious disease expert, testified that the ability to treat HIV has increased dramatically over the past 15 years, with over 20 different antiviral medications available for treatment. The expert testified that although an HIV positive diagnosis may have been tantamount to a death sentence in the past, with treatment, the prognosis today is “outstanding,” particularly when a patient promptly learns that he or she is infected and seeks treatment. Indeed, the expert testified that patients with HIV who take their medication, eat well, do not smoke, and reduce their alcohol intake can live a “very healthy, normal lifestyle,” and he expected a similar prognosis for the victim. We thus conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the People failed to establish that defendant’s reckless conduct posed a grave or “very substantial” risk of death to the victim (People v Roe, 74 NY2d 20, 24). ”
Just something to think about.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
Related Articles
- Understanding CPLR 3212(a) timing rules for summary judgment motions
- The CPLR 3212(g) paradigm for summary judgment practice
- No-Fault regulation amendments and their practical implications
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Update (February 2026): The medical understanding and legal treatment of HIV-related criminal charges discussed in this 2013 case may have evolved significantly over the past decade, with potential changes in prosecutorial standards, medical expert testimony requirements, and judicial approaches to assessing “grave risk of death” in similar cases. Practitioners handling HIV-related criminal matters should verify current medical consensus and legal precedents when evaluating charges under Penal Law § 120.25.
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York's no-fault insurance system, established under Insurance Law Article 51, is one of the most complex insurance frameworks in the country. Every motorist must carry Personal Injury Protection coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of fault, up to $50,000 per person.
But insurers routinely deny valid claims using peer reviews, EUO scheduling tactics, fee schedule reductions, and coverage defenses. The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum has handled over 100,000 no-fault cases since 2002 — from initial claim submissions through arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, trials in Civil Court and Supreme Court, and appeals to the Appellate Term and Appellate Division. Jason Tenenbaum is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
His 2,353+ published legal articles on no-fault practice are cited by attorneys throughout New York. Whether you are dealing with a medical necessity denial, an EUO no-show defense, a fee schedule dispute, or a coverage question, this article provides the kind of detailed case-law analysis that helps practitioners and claimants understand exactly where the law stands.
About This Topic
New York No-Fault Insurance Law
New York's no-fault insurance system requires every driver to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) coverage that pays medical expenses and lost wages regardless of who caused the accident. But insurers routinely deny, delay, and underpay valid claims — using peer reviews, IME no-shows, and fee schedule defenses to avoid paying providers and injured claimants. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has litigated thousands of no-fault arbitrations and court cases since 2002.
271 published articles in No-Fault
Keep Reading
More No-Fault Analysis
Car Accident Recorded Statement in New York: Should You Give One?
The at-fault driver's adjuster wants a recorded statement within days of a New York car accident — and that call is designed to weaken your case.
Apr 5, 2026
Who Pays Car Accident Medical Bills in New York? A Step-by-Step Guide
New York no-fault PIP, primary health insurance, Medicaid/Medicare, and litigation liens — the full payment ladder for car-accident medical bills.
Apr 5, 2026
Another Alrof citing
New York appellate court reinforces Alrof precedent requiring personal knowledge proof for EUO non-appearance claims in no-fault insurance litigation.
Oct 6, 2015
Liberty Mutual’s $10,000 Mistake: How Poor Legal Preparation Cost an Insurance Giant
How Liberty Mutual lost over $10,000 due to poor legal preparation in Nassau County court. Expert analysis of no-fault insurance defense mistakes.
Mar 31, 2010
Forum Non Convienens not provider
Court denies forum non conveniens motion in NY no-fault case due to inadmissible hearsay evidence and procedural defects in proof presentation.
Jul 7, 2022
The NF-2 does not matter
NY appeals court clarifies EUO scheduling requirements in no-fault insurance cases, ruling that timely denials within 30 days don't require NF-2 form receipt.
May 22, 2021Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a no-fault matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
