Attorney General James’ Office of Special Investigation Releases Report on Death of William Huertas

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James’ Office of Special Investigation (OSI) today released its report on the death of William Huertas, who died on December 13, 2025 following a motor vehicle incident involving an off-duty New York City Police Department (NYPD) officer in Orangeburg, Rockland County. After a thorough investigation, which included interviews with the involved officer and civilian witnesses, review of security camera footage, 911 calls, and collision scene photographs, and comprehensive legal analysis, OSI determined that a prosecutor would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the involved officer committed a crime, and therefore criminal charges are not warranted in this case.

On December 13, at 9:05 p.m., an off-duty NYPD officer was driving northbound in his personal vehicle on New York State Route 303 in Orangeburg. Route 303 has four travel lanes, two southbound and two northbound, divided by a double-yellow centerline. Route 303 runs past a Lowe’s Home Improvement Store (Lowe’s) located at 206 Route 303. Mr. Huertas was an employee of Lowe’s and was walking across Route 303 after his shift, in the dark, and not in a marked crosswalk when the off-duty NYPD officer struck him. The officer applied the brakes seconds before he struck Mr. Huertas. The officer immediately called 911 and, along with a civilian witness, began performing life-saving measures until an ambulance arrived. Mr. Huertas was transported to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

In New York, proving criminally negligent homicide requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person caused a death when they failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would occur; that the failure to perceive the risk was a gross deviation from a reasonable person’s standard of care; and that the person engaged in blameworthy conduct. In this case, there is no evidence that the officer was speeding, driving while distracted or on his cell phone, impaired by drugs or alcohol, driving through a steady red traffic light or stop sign, or otherwise driving in a dangerous manner. The evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer’s conduct was a gross deviation from the standard that would have been observed by a reasonable person in the same circumstances, or that the officer failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. Therefore, OSI concluded that the evidence did not warrant criminal charges.