You are here: / / CLAIMANT’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S...
, , , ,

CLAIMANT’S ATTORNEY WAS NOT AWARE OF THE THIRD DEPARTMENT’S UNIQUE REQUIREMENT OF FULL EXPERT-WITNESS DISCLOSURE FOR A TREATING PHYSICIAN; THAT WAS AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE FOR AN UNTIMELY DISCLOSURE (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined claimant’s treating physician (Hopson) in this personal injury case should have been allowed to testify as an expert, despite the failure to comply with full expert disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3101. The Third Department is the only department which requires such full expert disclosure by a treating physician and claimant’s attorney had not practiced in the Third Department:

There is no dispute that claimant failed to comply with the expert disclosure requirements of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) in identifying Hopson as a witness. Nevertheless, we disagree with the Court of Claims’ finding that claimant’s excuse was unreasonable. The situation here mirrors that in Schmitt v Oneonta City Sch. Dist. (151 AD3d 1254), where we accepted the explanation of the plaintiffs’ attorney that he was “unaware of this Court’s interpretation of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) and the corresponding need to file an expert disclosure for a treating physician, and the record [was] otherwise devoid of any indication that counsel’s failure to file such disclosure was willful” … . The same holds true here, as claimant’s attorney revealed that she practices law in a different judicial department and candidly conceded that she was unaware of this Court’s interpretation that the statute requires expert disclosure for treating physicians. There is nothing in the record calling into question the veracity of counsel’s representations and no basis to conclude that the noncompliance with CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) was willful. As such, the court erred in precluding Hopson’s testimony as an expert witness…. . Freeman v State of New York, 2022 NY Slip Op 03559, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: Only the Third Department requires full expert-witness disclosure for a treating physician.

 

You might also like
THE DELAY IN PRODUCING THE DEFENDANT FOR ARRAIGNMENT AFTER THE PEOPLE BECAME AWARE HE WAS IN CUSTODY WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PEOPLE (A “CONTRADICTORY HOLDING” BY THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT WAS NOTED); DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MOVE TO DISMISS ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO RESENTENCING UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (THIRD DEPT).
INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM REGARDING AN INCIDENT IN THE COUNTY JAIL BY SENDING THE PAPERS TO THE COURT CLERK, NOT THE COUNTY COURT, WAS A NULLITY, PETITIONER’S SECOND ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN COULD NOT, THEREFORE, RELATE BACK TO THE INITIAL ATTEMPT (THIRD DEPT).
Because the Presence of THC Can Be Detected Long After Marijuana Use, the People Were Not Able to Prove Defendant Used Marijuana During a One-Week Furlough
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SEE ICE ON THE PARKING LOT RAISED A TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (THIRD DEPT).
Factual Sufficiency of Indictment Is Non-Jurisdictional Defect
Failure to Make Timely Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Improper Service Constituted a Waiver of the Jurisdictional Defense
ZONING BOARD’S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE WAS BASED PRIMARILY ON COMMUNITY OPPOSITION; THE DENIAL WAS PROPERLY ANNULLED BY SUPREME COURT (THIRD 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

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER’S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S... IF GERMANY WAS DECEDENT’S DOMICILE, NEW YORK MAY RECOGNIZE THE GERMAN...