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
DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN VALIDATED, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INVALIDATED TWO SIGNATURES BECAUSE THE CANDIDATE WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THE ALLEGATION, MADE DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION AT A HEARING, THAT THE TWO SIGNATURES WERE INVALID (SECOND DEPT).
A NINETY-DAY NOTICE WHICH DOES NOT STATE THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION IS DEFECTIVE AND HAS NO EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
​ DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION OR DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED A CRACKED WINDOW PANE BROKE AND FELL, INJURING HER HAND; THERE WAS EVIDENCE OF AT LEAST 33 INSTANCES WHERE A WINDOW IN DEFENDANT’S BUILDING WAS IN NEED OF REPAIR (A RECURRING DANGEROUS CONDITION), RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO INSPECT THE WINDOWS (SECOND DEPT).
Denial of Special Use Permit Reversed As Arbitrary and Capricious/Difference Between Special Use Permit and Use Variance Explained
THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL), NOT THE CPLR, CONTROLS THE COMMENCEMENT OF A REAL PROPERTY TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).
“Prompt Pay Law” Affords a Private Right of Action Against An Insurer Which Fails to Pay a Patient’s Undisputed Medical Claim

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...