Asher & Associates RICO Lawsuit: NYC Sues Injury Firm Over Alleged Fake Roadway Claims

The City of New York has sued Manhattan personal injury firm Asher & Associates, P.C. and its two principals, Ryan H. Asher and Roberta D. Asher, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging a decade-long scheme of filing notices of claim and lawsuits that blamed city roadways for injuries actually caused by fights, hit-and-run drivers and rear-end crashes. The Asher & Associates RICO lawsuit, announced on October 5, 2026, seeks treble damages under federal racketeering law and treble damages plus civil penalties under the city and state false claims acts, and it is the first case in the current wave of RICO suits against plaintiffs' lawyers to be brought by a government that was itself the target of the challenged claims.

That last point is what makes the case worth following beyond New York. Private RICO plaintiffs, including Uber in Brooklyn and a construction-accident reinsurer in the Second Circuit, have lost cases in 2026 on the ground that they were too remote from the alleged fraud or could not plausibly allege injury. The City sits in a different position: the claims were served on it, defended by it, and, where any were paid, paid by it. The allegations below are the City's; none has been tested, and the defendants had not responded publicly when this article was published.

What the NYC lawsuit against Asher & Associates alleges

According to the City Law Department's announcement, the firm fraudulently filed more than a dozen notices of claim and related lawsuits seeking tens of millions of dollars from the City and its Department of Transportation. Each one, the City says, attributed a client's injuries to a scooter, moped or bicycle accident caused by a defect in the roadway, the kind of claim that can be pursued against a municipality only if the City is responsible for the street condition.

The City alleges that the records created closest to the event told a different story. Ambulance crews and emergency room staff, it says, documented causes of injury in which the City had no role. The complaint, reported to run about 80 pages, sets out 15 examples in which the descriptions recorded at the time were consistent with assaults, hit-and-run collisions or rear-end crashes into stopped vehicles rather than roadway defects. Bloomberg Law reported that the complaint describes injuries arising from events for which the City could not "conceivably bear factual or legal responsibility."

The pleading also reaches beyond the dozen-plus claims it details. Press accounts report that the City alleges the firm may have committed "hundreds if not thousands" of racketeering acts over the past ten years, and that the complaint names unidentified "runners" and financiers as participants who allegedly helped bring in clients and fund the claims.

Corporation Counsel Steven Banks said personal injury laws exist to protect actual victims of trauma, "not to line the pockets of people looking to make a quick buck off City taxpayers," and accused the firm of fabricating claims against the City "and others." Transportation Commissioner Mike Flynn said fraudulent personal injury lawsuits "profit on the misfortune of others and taxpayers bear the burden."

Who are the defendants in the City of New York RICO case?

The named defendants are Asher & Associates, P.C., a Manhattan firm; Ryan H. Asher, admitted to the New York bar in October 1999 and with the firm since about 2003; and Roberta D. Asher, admitted in August 1983. The complaint also lists unnamed defendants described as runners and financiers. Their identities are not public, and the City has not said whether it intends to amend once discovery identifies them.

Neither Ryan Asher nor Roberta Asher responded to press requests for comment in the first days after the filing. No answer or motion had been filed as of October 7, and no judge assignment or docket number had been reported.

What laws is New York City suing under, and what damages does it seek?

The City pleads three statutes. Each carries a multiplied-damages remedy, and the two false claims laws add per-violation penalties, which can matter when the actual payout on a claim was small or nothing.

Statute	Core liability	Damages multiplier	Civil penalty
RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (remedy in § 1964(c))	Conducting an enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity; plaintiff must be injured in business or property "by reason of" the violation	Treble damages, plus costs and attorney's fees	None
New York City False Claims Act, Admin. Code § 7-801 et seq.	Knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim to the City, or making a false record material to one	Treble damages (can drop to double for prompt self-reporting and cooperation)	$5,000 to $15,000 per violation
New York State False Claims Act, State Finance Law § 187 et seq.	Same core conduct; § 190 lets a local government sue on its own behalf	Treble damages, including consequential damages	$6,000 to $12,000 per violation, adjusted to match federal False Claims Act penalties

The City has not put a dollar figure on its damages in public statements. The demands in the cited suits run into the millions, but a demand is not a loss: what the City can recover under RICO depends on what it actually paid or spent, while the false claims statutes allow penalties for each false claim presented. Whether a notice of claim served under the General Municipal Law counts as a "claim" for false claims act purposes is a question the court may have to answer, and it will shape how much exposure the penalty provisions create.

What examples of fraudulent claims does the complaint cite?

The City's announcement highlights two of the 15 examples. Both suits were filed in 2022 and both sought $3 million.

Case	Filed	Amount sought	Injury as pleaded by the firm	What the City says the records show
Jermaine Corley v. City of New York and NYC Department of Transportation	2022	$3 million	Bicycle accident caused by a defective roadway on Utica Avenue, Brooklyn	Medical records indicate injuries from a fight
Boyd-Coggins v. City of New York	2022	$3 million	Fall from an electric scooter caused by a "ditch" or "hole" on Fifth Avenue near West 139th Street, Manhattan	Statements to hospital personnel describe an automobile accident

The pattern the City describes is a mismatch between the incident narrative given to first responders and the narrative later placed in the notice of claim and complaint. That is the evidence a fraud case of this kind usually rests on, and it is also the evidence the defense will attack, since patients' accounts in an ambulance or emergency room can be incomplete, translated, or recorded by staff focused on treatment rather than causation.

How roadway injury claims against New York City work

The alleged scheme makes more sense against the procedural route every roadway claim against the City must travel.

Notice of claim. Under General Municipal Law § 50-e, a claimant generally must serve a notice of claim within 90 days of the incident, stating how, when and where the injury occurred. That notice is the first statement the City receives, and it is a "claim" for payment in the ordinary sense.

The 50-h examination. Under General Municipal Law § 50-h, the City may demand a sworn pre-suit examination of the claimant before a lawsuit can be filed. Those transcripts are likely to feature heavily in the case, because they lock in the claimant's account under oath.

Prior written notice. Administrative Code § 7-201(c)(2), often called the Pothole Law, bars a civil action against the City for an injury caused by a defective street or sidewalk unless the City had prior written notice of the specific defect. The recognized exceptions are narrow: the City created the defect through its own affirmative negligence, or a special use of the street conferred a special benefit on the City. Claimants typically try to satisfy the rule with Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Committee maps or DOT complaint records.

That last rule matters for both sides. Because prior written notice is a condition precedent, a roadway claim depends on matching the injury to a mapped or reported defect at a precise location. The City's theory implies that a known defect location can be paired with an injury that happened somewhere else or in some other way. The defense will point out that the City had every procedural tool, including the 50-h examination and discovery, to test these claims in the underlying cases, and that the outcomes of those cases may say a lot about whether the City relied on anything false.

Can a city sue a personal injury law firm under RICO?

Yes. A municipality can be a civil RICO plaintiff if it is injured in its business or property by reason of a RICO violation, and New York City has used the statute before. The leading obstacle is proximate cause, and on that point the City has a history of its own: in Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York (2010), the Supreme Court held that the City's lost cigarette tax revenue was too indirect a harm from an out-of-state seller's failure to file customer reports with the state to support a RICO claim.

This case is built differently. Here the City alleges it was the direct object of the fraud: the false statements were made to it, in notices and lawsuits demanding its money. That is the direct-relationship model courts look for, and it contrasts with the private RICO cases that have failed in 2026. In July, the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of Roosevelt Road Re's case because a reinsurer and program manager were too far removed from the alleged construction-accident fraud. In August, Judge Orelia E. Merchant of the Eastern District of New York dismissed Uber's New York RICO case for failure to plausibly allege a conspiracy aimed at Uber or a cognizable injury.

Injury remains a live issue even for the City. If the claims were defended and dismissed or never paid, the City's losses may consist mainly of investigation and defense costs, and courts have divided on whether litigation expenses alone are RICO injury. Settlement payments on any of the challenged claims would be a cleaner measure. Judge Merchant's Uber ruling adds a timing problem: she found Uber had not alleged a "clear and definite" injury while the underlying personal injury cases were still unresolved, and any Asher suits still pending against the City could draw the same argument. The false claims counts reduce this risk, because penalties attach to each false claim presented whether or not it was paid.

How is the NYC case different from Uber's and insurers' RICO suits against lawyers?

This site's October 6 analysis of the American Tort Reform Foundation's report counted nearly 300 civil RICO suits filed by businesses and insurers since 2024, two dozen of which name lawyers, firms or funders. The NYC Asher lawsuit joins that group with three distinguishing features: a public plaintiff, a direct target of the alleged claims, and parallel false claims counts that private parties cannot bring on their own behalf.

Case	Plaintiff	Court	Status (as of Oct 7, 2026)
Uber Technologies v. Simon & Simon	Uber and FedEx	E.D. Pa.	Motion to dismiss denied May 11, 2026; Noerr-Pennington defense rejected at pleading stage
Uber (New York RICO case)	Uber	E.D.N.Y.	Dismissed August 14, 2026 for failure to allege conspiracy and injury
Roosevelt Road Re (construction accidents)	Reinsurer and program manager	2d Cir.	Dismissal affirmed July 2026 on direct-injury grounds
3M v. Hammond	3M	E.D. Ky.	RICO claims survived September 30, 2026; state fraud counts dismissed
Ford v. Knight Law Group	Ford	C.D. Cal.	Dismissed without leave to amend March 11, 2026 on Noerr-Pennington grounds
City of New York v. Asher & Associates	City of New York	S.D.N.Y.	Announced October 5, 2026; no responsive filing yet

The Second Circuit's direct-injury ruling binds the Southern District, and the Eastern District's Uber dismissal, while not binding, comes from the neighboring court applying the same circuit law. The City's complaint appears designed to sit on the right side of both: the claims were presented to it, and its harm, if proven, flows directly from them.

Have Ryan Asher and Roberta Asher been disciplined before?

Yes, both were publicly censured in late 2025, though for conduct of a different kind from what the City alleges.

On November 13, 2025, the Appellate Division, First Department publicly censured Ryan Heath Asher on a joint motion for discipline on consent with the Attorney Grievance Committee, based on his mishandling of three client matters. One involved a client who retained the firm in 2008 for a suit against the City and the NYPD; the case was settled by stipulation in June 2019, but the court found it had not been moved forward in the six years since, including execution of the settlement documents. The court treated a June 2009 admonition for neglect as aggravating, and noted in mitigation that the misconduct was not motivated by personal profit and did not involve dishonesty toward clients, adversaries or the courts.

On December 2, 2025, the same court publicly censured Roberta Dorf Asher (Matter of Asher, 2025 NY Slip Op 06651) after an April 2025 petition with seven charges arising from three client matters, including failing to keep a client informed and to answer reasonable requests for information. The court observed that public censure is typically imposed where misconduct rests on negligence or mistake "rather than venal intent."

Those findings are not evidence of the fraud alleged now, and the defendants may cite the court's no-dishonesty finding in their favor. The City may instead treat the 2025 proceedings as context showing the firm's volume of City-facing litigation. Disciplinary consequences from the new allegations, if any, would come through the grievance process, not this federal case.

Likely defenses and open questions

The firm has not responded, but the defenses raised in the other RICO cases against lawyers suggest the likely battleground.

• Noerr-Pennington and petitioning immunity. Filing a claim against the government is core petitioning activity. The question is whether the alleged conduct falls within the sham or misrepresentation exceptions. The Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Uber v. Simon & Simon held that pre-filing fabrication of evidence and a pattern of filings pursued without regard to merit are not protected; Ford's case against Knight Law Group was dismissed on immunity grounds. Here, the alleged misstatements are factual claims about how an injury happened, which sits closer to the misrepresentation end.
• Pattern and particularity. RICO fraud predicates must be pleaded with particularity under Rule 9(b). Fifteen detailed examples help; the "hundreds if not thousands" figure will likely be attacked as unsupported if it rests on extrapolation.
• Knowledge. The City must show the lawyers knew the narratives were false. Lawyers generally take a client's account at face value, and the defense will say a conflict between a client's story and a hospital note is a matter for cross-examination, not proof of fraud. The City's answer is the repetition of the same mismatch across many files.
• Timing. Civil RICO carries a four-year statute of limitations running from discovery of the injury, and the false claims statutes have their own limitations periods. A ten-year scheme will face arguments that older episodes are time-barred.
• Collateral attack. If any cited suit was resolved on the merits or settled with a release, the defense may argue the City is relitigating or is bound by its own settlement.

What the Asher & Associates RICO lawsuit means for personal injury firms

For plaintiffs' firms that handle municipal liability claims, the practical message is that a government defendant is now willing to go on offense with fraud statutes, and that the first records generated after an incident are the evidence that will be used.

• Reconcile the intake story with EMS and ER records early. If the ambulance call report or triage note describes a different mechanism of injury, a firm that files without addressing the gap is exposed. A short documented explanation in the file is cheap protection.
• Know who referred the client and who is paying. The City's inclusion of unnamed runners and financiers signals that referral sources and funding arrangements will be subpoenaed. Paid client solicitation is already prohibited under New York's Rules of Professional Conduct; this case adds federal civil exposure. Firms using third-party litigation funding should expect funding agreements to be discoverable.
• Volume creates pattern evidence. RICO requires a pattern; a firm with high volume in one claim category against one defendant gives a plaintiff a ready-made sample. Quality control on high-volume dockets is now also risk management.
• The contingency fee is not a shield. Firms sometimes assume that being paid only on recovery limits exposure. RICO and false claims liability attach to presenting the claim, not to the fee.

What it means for municipalities, insurers and funders

Other cities and counties. New York's State Finance Law § 190 already lets local governments sue on their own behalf under the state False Claims Act, and many large cities have their own false claims ordinances. If the Asher complaint survives a motion to dismiss, it provides a template for municipal law departments elsewhere that face high volumes of trip-and-fall and roadway claims.

Insurers and self-insured defendants. Private RICO plaintiffs have struggled with direct injury and conspiracy pleading. The City's case will produce rulings on Noerr-Pennington, pattern and scienter in the Southern District that private litigants will cite, whichever way they go.

Litigation funders. Naming unidentified financiers is a reminder that funders who finance specific claims may be pulled into fraud litigation if the underlying claims are alleged to be fabricated. That raises diligence expectations on case-level funding and on the documentation a funder asks for before advancing money.

What happens next

The defendants will be served and are likely to move to dismiss, which in the Southern District usually means a pre-motion letter followed by briefing over several months. The key early questions are whether the RICO count survives Noerr-Pennington and the pleading standards, and whether the court treats notices of claim as false claims under the city and state statutes. Discovery, if it opens, would reach the firm's case files, referral relationships and any funding agreements, which is where the identities of the unnamed runners and financiers would surface.

FAQ

What is the NYC lawsuit against Asher & Associates about?

New York City alleges that Manhattan personal injury firm Asher & Associates and its principals filed more than a dozen notices of claim and lawsuits seeking tens of millions of dollars by falsely blaming city roadway defects for injuries that ambulance and hospital records attribute to fights, hit-and-runs or car crashes.

What laws is New York City suing Asher & Associates under?

The City sues under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the New York City False Claims Act and the New York State False Claims Act, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

What damages is New York City seeking?

The City seeks treble damages under RICO and treble damages plus civil penalties under both false claims acts; the city law's penalty is $5,000 to $15,000 per violation. It has not stated a total dollar figure.

Can a city sue a personal injury law firm under RICO?

Yes, if the city was injured in its business or property by the racketeering. The Supreme Court rejected an indirect New York City RICO theory in Hemi Group (2010), but here the City says it was the direct target of the false claims.

Have the Asher & Associates attorneys been disciplined before?

Yes. The Appellate Division, First Department publicly censured Ryan Asher on November 13, 2025 and Roberta Asher on December 2, 2025, each over neglect in three client matters; the court found no dishonesty in Ryan Asher's case.

What does the NYC case mean for personal injury firms?

It shows a government defendant will use fraud statutes against a claimant's firm, and that discrepancies between a client's account and first-responder records, along with referral and funding relationships, are the evidence that will be examined.