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
RESPONDENT DID NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DENY PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST BY EXTENDING ITS SELF-IMPOSED DEADLINES FOR RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE RECORD DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD TOOK THE REQUIRED “HARD LOOK” AT THE EFFECTS OF THE EMISSION OF HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS [HAPS] FROM THE PROPOSED “BIOSOLIDS REMEDIATION AND FERTILIZER PROCESSING FACILITY;” THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS THEREFORE DEEMED ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS (THIRD DEPT). ​
PETITIONER CHIROPRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGED RECEIVING PAYMENTS DIRECTLY FROM A MEDICAL EQUIPMENT PROVIDER IN VIOLATION OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW; BECAUSE THERE WERE NO CONTESTED FACTS, THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD HAD THE POWER TO REMOVE PETITIONER FROM THE LIST OF AUTHORIZED MEDICAL PROVIDERS WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THE REQUISITE PROCEDURE FOR A BATSON INQUIRY; MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW THE JUDGE TO RULE ON WHETHER THE PROSECUTOR’S REASON FOR EXCLUDING A JUROR WAS PRETEXTUAL; THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED DESPITE A FAILURE TO PRESERVE THE ERROR (THIRD DEPT).
THE TRIAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED THE STATE HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE POTHOLE WHERE PLAINTIFF FRACTURED HER ANKLE AND FAILED TO REPAIR IT; NONJURY VERDICT REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR DENIAL OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE ILLUSTRATED.
THE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS MUST BE DISMISSED AND THE RELATED SENTENCES VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
IN THIS ELECTION LAW CASE, THE SIGNATORIES’ NAMES WERE PRINTED ON THE DESIGNATING PETITION BUT WERE INSCRIBED ON THE VOTER REGISTRATION FORMS; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ACCEPTED PROOF THAT THE SIGNATORIES WHOSE NAMES WERE PRINTED WERE IN FACT THE SAME AS THOSE WHOSE SIGNATURES WERE ON THE REGISTRATION FORMS (FOURTH 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...