Attorney General James’ Office of Special Investigation Releases Report on Death of Paul Alvarez

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James’ Office of Special Investigation (OSI) today released its report on the death of Paul Alvarez, who died on December 18, 2025 after a motor vehicle incident involving an off-duty Cheektowaga Police Department (CPD) officer in West Seneca, Erie County. Following a thorough investigation, which included review of footage from security cameras and responding officers’ body-worn cameras, police reports, witness statements, and the medical examiner’s report, an interview with the involved officer, and comprehensive legal analysis, OSI concluded that a prosecutor would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the involved officer committed a crime, and therefore criminal charges are not warranted in this case.

At approximately 9:15 p.m. on December 18, Mr. Alvarez was walking east near the center of the westbound lane on Clinton Street in West Seneca while dressed in all black with his hood up. Clinton Street is a two-lane roadway running east to west lined with streetlights with significant gaps between them, which create areas with very limited light. Clinton Street does not have sidewalks, and the posted speed limit is 45 MPH.

At 9:25 p.m., an off-duty CPD officer was driving west in the westbound lane on Clinton Street when his dog yelped from the backseat. The officer glanced toward his dog then looked back at the road, where he said he saw “something” directly in front of his vehicle and struck it before he could stop. Another driver traveling in their car behind the off-duty officer reported hearing a “thud” upon impact. The officer then got out of his vehicle, saw that he had hit Mr. Alvarez, and went to check on him. Several other drivers also stopped, and the off-duty officer instructed one of the bystanders to call 911.

Following multiple 911 calls, officers with the West Seneca Police Department (WSPD) reported to the scene. When they arrived, they saw members of the Union Volunteer Fire Department attempting to provide aid to Mr. Alvarez, which they continued to do until emergency medical personnel arrived in an ambulance to perform lifesaving measures. Mr. Alvarez was transported to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Officers with WSPD spoke with the off-duty CPD officer and administered standardized field sobriety tests, which he passed. The off-duty officer also voluntarily submitted a preliminary breath alcohol test (PBT), which returned a blood alcohol content of 0.00 percent. The off-duty CPD officer was then transported to WSPD headquarters, where he completed a written statement.

In New York, proving criminally negligent homicide requires proving 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. Though he was distracted by his dog and failed to see Mr. Alvarez in the roadway, there is no evidence that the off-duty officer was speeding, impaired by drugs or alcohol, or otherwise driving in a dangerous manner. After he hit Mr. Alvarez, the off-duty officer got out of his vehicle and asked bystanders to call for help.

In this case, the evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the off-duty 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 he failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. Therefore, OSI concluded that the evidence did not warrant criminal charges.

The OSI recommends that all law enforcement agencies in New York hold police officers to the same standards applied to civilians involved in motor vehicle collisions and obtain a blood sample for toxicology blood testing. In this case, while the involved officer’s PBT returned a blood alcohol content of 0.00 percent, he also volunteered to provide a blood sample. Still, WSPD officers did not take steps to secure a blood sample for testing. They should have taken a blood sample. In addition, in cases where an involved officer refuses to consent to a blood test, OSI recommends that the responding law enforcement agency seeks a court order to compel compliance.