You are here: / / DEFENDANTS’ MEDICAL EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BASED...
, ,

DEFENDANTS’ MEDICAL EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY BASED UPON THE MEDICAL RECORDS AND MATERIAL IN EVIDENCE DESPITE NOT HAVING PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE INJURIES; THE EXPERT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT CAUSATION EVEN THOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE EXPERT REPORT (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to set aside the verdict in this rear-end collision case should have been granted because defendants’ expert was precluded from testifying:

“[T]o be admissible, opinion evidence must be based on,” inter alia, (1) “personal knowledge of the facts upon which the opinion rests,” or, (2) “where the expert does not have personal knowledge of the facts upon which the opinion rests, the opinion may be based upon facts and material in evidence, real or testimonial” … . Here, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to preclude the defendants’ medical expert, Edward Weiland, from testifying regarding records and testimony that were in evidence and from testifying on the issue of causation. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Weiland should have been permitted to testify regarding the records and testimony in evidence even if he lacked personal knowledge as to the specific injuries addressed therein … . Furthermore, Weiland should have been permitted to testify on the issue of causation, despite not having addressed this issue in his expert report, because “the issue of causation was implicit on the question of damages” … . The court’s errors in limiting Weiland’s testimony were not harmless … . Therefore, the court should have granted the defendants’ motion, in effect, to set aside the jury verdict, to vacate the judgment entered thereon, and for a new trial on the issue of damages. Gubitosi v Hyppolite, 2020 NY Slip Op 06761, Second Dept 11-18-20

 

You might also like
JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DISMSSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DEPRIVED PLAINTIFF OF NOTICE AND A CHANCE TO BE HEARD, A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY FELL SIX FEET FROM A SCAFFOLD WITHOUT GUARD RAILS; PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HIS “BRAKES FAILED” WAS DEEMED SELF-SERVING AND INADMISSIBLE (SECOND DEPT).
SENTENCING COURT MUST CONSIDER YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS EVEN WHERE IT IS NOT REQUESTED OR WHERE DEFENDANT AGREES TO FORGO IT AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN (SECOND DEPT).
THE INSTRUCTION THAT MOTHER NOT “EXPOSE” THE CHILD TO ACTIVITIES NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE CHILD’S FAITH, WHICH IMPLICITLY REQUIRED THAT THE CHILD NOT BE “EXPOSED” TO MOTHER’S LGBTQ IDENTITY, IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE COUNTERCLAIM FOR LOST PROFITS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “LOST PROFITS” AS CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WAS CONTEMPLATED BY THE PARTIES AT THE TIME THE CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS WAS ENTERED; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION DID NOT APPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S DEMOLITION-WORK-INJURY; THE DEFENDANT GENERAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT EXERCISE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND WAS NOT, THEREFORE, LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200 (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT SET ASIDE IN THIS SUBWAY SLIP AND FALL CASE AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE, TRIAL EVIDENCE INDICATED COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ON PLAINTIFF’S PART (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 DRAM SHOP ACT DOES NOT CREATE A CAUSE OF ACTION IN FAVOR OF THE INTOXICATED... THE 2019 MOTION TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO ACTIVE STATUS AFTER THE NOTE OF ISSUE...