The current consensus of nuclear winter is probably summed up as "if nuclear weapons turns cities into giant stratospheric soot pumps, we're screwed; if they don't, we've just reversed global warming for a few years."

Looking for recent research, there seems to only be one group modelling nuclear winter scenarios, and those papers seem to be using the 1980s-era numbers for soot generation without commentary on how valid those assumptions are (other than to say that it's contentious) [1]. I don't see any papers directly discussing soot generation in relation to nuclear winter, and I suspect our large-scale fire modelling is not yet capable of answering the question of what the resulting fire from a nuclear warhead strike on NYC would look like.

I'm personally on the side that thinks the stratospheric injection of large-scale metropolitan fires is wildly overestimated (the Kuwaiti oil fires failing to reach that level being evidence of that point), which means that the risks of nuclear winter

[1] And the paper itself has a section on implications for nuclear policy, which sets off motivated-to-reach-a-conclusion research alarm bells for me.