You are here: / / DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EXPERT EVIDENCE...
,

DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EXPERT EVIDENCE AT TRIAL, PLAINTIFF WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant should not have been precluded from presenting expert evidence at trial. The Second Department noted that there is no rigid time requirement for the notice of the intent to present expert testimony and plaintiff was provided with the nature of the expert’s opinion prior to setting the trial date:

“CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) requires a party, upon request, to identify the expert witnesses the party expects to call at trial” … . However, CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) “does not require a response at any particular time or mandate that a party be precluded from proffering expert testimony merely because of noncompliance with the statute” … .

Here, the defendant served his expert notice prior to a trial date being set, and thus it was not untimely … . Further, the notice was not deficient. It identified the expert witness, indicated that he was a vocational expert, and included the expert’s qualifications. Although the notice did not include the expert’s opinion and grounds for that opinion, that information was in the draft report that was received by the plaintiff prior to the trial date being set (see CPLR 3101[d]).

The defendant also complied with the requirements set forth in 22 NYCRR 202.16(g) by disclosing his expert witness shortly after the expert had been retained … and serving the expert report more than 60 days before trial (see 22 NYCRR 202.16[g][2]). Giovinazzo-Varela v Varela, 2023 NY Slip Op 04441, Second Dept 8-30-23

Practice Point: There is no strict time-limit for providing notice of the intent to present expert evidence and the nature of that evidence. Here defendant provided plaintiff with timely notice and the expert evidence should not have been precluded.

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE MORTGAGE CONTINGENCY PROVISION OF THE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS NO LONGER OPERABLE BECAUSE THE MORTGAGE COMMITMENT WAS REVOKED AFTER THE CONTINGENCY PERIOD HAD ELAPSED, THE SELLER’S BAD FAITH WARRANTED RETURN OF THE DOWN PAYMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DESPITE TERMINATION OF MOTHER’S PARENTAL RIGHTS, GRANDMOTHER HAD STANDING TO SEEK VISITATION AND VISITATION WITH GRANDMOTHER WAS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A PIECE OF UNSECURED PLYWOOD WHICH FELL, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
VACATING A NOTE OF ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME AS MARKING A CASE OFF PURSUANT TO CPLR 3404; WHEN A NOTE OF ISSUE IS VACATED, THE ACTION REVERTS TO A PRE-NOTE OF ISSUE STATUS AND CAN BE RESTORED TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR WITHOUT MEETING THE STRINGENT CPLR 3404 REQUIREMENTS (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD’S AGENTS WERE AWARE OF THE DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE, LANDLORD’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Corroboration Requirements for Child’s Out-of-Court Statements Described
Question of Fact Raised Re: Negligent Supervision of Student by School in an Indoor Floor Hockey Game—Student Injured by Gym Teacher Who Was Participating in the Game

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 COLLAPSE OF A TRENCH IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED... EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S PHYSICAL CONDITION WAS IN CONTROVERSY, DEFENDANT...