You are here: / / THE DEFENSE DID NOT NEED TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH “EXPERT-OPINION”...
, ,

THE DEFENSE DID NOT NEED TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH “EXPERT-OPINION” NOTICE OF ITS INTENT TO CALL PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN TO TESTIFY THAT PLAINTIFF’S COGNITIVE DEFICITS WERE THE RESULT OF A PRIOR STROKE, NOT THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; THE DOCTOR’S TESTIMONY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED AND THE $2,000,000 VERDICT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there was no need for the defendants to give prior notification to the plaintiff of the defendants’ intent to call one of plaintiff’s treating doctors to testify about the cause of plaintiff’s cognitive deficits in this traffic accident case. The doctor would have testified the deficits were caused by a prior stroke. The testimony was precluded by Supreme Court because no “expert witness” notice had been provided to the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 3101(d). The plaintiff was awarded $2,000,000 but the Second Department held the verdict should have been set aside:

A treating physician is permitted to testify at trial regarding causation, notwithstanding the failure to provide notice pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1) … .”Indeed, a plaintiff’s treating physician could testify to the cause of the injuries even if he or she had expressed no opinion regarding causation in his or her previously exchanged medical report'”… . Here, the Supreme Court should not have precluded the plaintiff’s treating physician from testifying regarding causation based on the defendants’ failure to provide notice pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1), as that provision does not apply to treating physicians … . Moreover, under the circumstances of this case, the error in precluding this testimony cannot be deemed harmless.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 4404(a) to set aside the verdict on the issue of damages in the interest of justice and for a new trial on that issue. Duman v Scharf, 2020 NY Slip Op 04537, Second Dept 8-19-20

 

You might also like
No “Special Relationship” Between School District and Teacher Injured by Student
UNDER THE NEW DISCOVERY ARTICLE, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW ARTICLE 245, THE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO “AUTOMATIC” DISCLOSURE OF THE TESTIMONY (IN A PRIOR CASE) OF AN ARRESTING OFFICER WHICH HAD BEEN DEEMED INCREDIBLE; THE FAILURE TO TURN OVER THE EVIDENCE RENDERED THE STATEMENT OF READINESS ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Valuation of Vacant Land Explained
WHERE THE ESSENCE OF A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION IS THE FAILURE TO PROPERLY DIAGNOSE PLAINTIFF’S CONDITION, THE CRITERIA FOR A “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION ARE NOT MET (SECOOND DEPT
THE DECRETAL PARAGRAPH OF THE APPELLATE DECISION REMITTING THE MATTER FOR RETRIAL DID NOT IMPOSE THE CONDITIONS ON RETRIAL WHICH WERE IMPOSED BY SUPREME COURT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Driver Could Not Avoid Striking Bicyclist Who Did Not Stop at a Stop Sign
Defendant Seeking Summary Judgment Under the Storm in Progress Rule Must Demonstrate It Did Not Undertake Snow Removal During or Immediately After the Storm and Did Not Create or Exacerbate the Dangerous Condition
THE PROOF DID NOT SUPPORT A FINDING THAT THE ASSAULT SECOND AND CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON THIRD CONVICTIONS WERE BASED ON SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ACTS, THEREFORE CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE NOT WARRANTED; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED ON A NEW JERSEY CONVICTION WHICH WAS NOT A FELONY IN NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 AND 1304... THE STATE HIGHWAY LAW MAY HAVE IMPOSED A DUTY ON THE TOWN TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK...