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
PROOF OF MAILING OF THE REQUIRED NOTICE DEFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DESIGNATING PETITION PROPERLY INVALIDATED AND THE CANDIDATE’S NAME WAS PROPERLY STRUCK FROM THE PRIMARY BALLOT, THE CANDIDATE’S NAME APPEARED ON DESIGNATING PETITIONS FOR TWO DIFFERENT PUBLIC OFFICES WHICH PRESUMPTIVELY MISLED THE PUBLIC (SECOND DEPT).
AWARDING A PARENT DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY FOR ANY MAJOR CHILD-RELATED ISSUE IS TANTAMOUNT TO MODIFYING A CUSTODY ARRANGEMENT TO AWARD SOLE CUSTODY TO THE DECISION-MAKING PARENT; SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A HEARING (SECOND DEPT). ​
OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD (NYC HOUSING AUTHORITY) DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF A DEFECTIVE WINDOW WHICH ALLEGEDLY SLAMMED SHUT SEVERING A PORTION OF PLAINTIFF’S FINGER, LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE SUMMONS WAS NOT RECEIVED IN TIME TO DEFEND THE ACTION, AND DID NOT PROVIDE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH RPAPL 1306; DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
MURDER SECOND COUNTS WERE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF MURDER FIRST AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; FORMER APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO RAISE THE ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITIONERS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE OPERATION OF A CONCRETE PLANT WOULD CAUSE INJURIES TO THEM DIFFERENT FROM THOSE SUFFERED BY THE PUBLIC AT LARGE; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED PETITIONERS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE RENOVATION AND OPERATION OF THE PLANT (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 COLLAPSE OF A TRENCH IN WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING WAS AN ELEVATION-RELATED... EVEN THOUGH DEFENDANT’S PHYSICAL CONDITION WAS IN CONTROVERSY, DEFENDANT...