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
SORA Point Assessments Affirmed Over Two-Justice Dissent Arguing the Proof of Online Sexual Conduct Was Insufficient, the Evidence of “Grooming” the Victims Was Insufficient, and the Social Immaturity of the Defendant Should Have Been Considered as a Mitigating Factor
GENERAL RELEASE WAS NOT LIMITED TO A 2007 ACTION AND THEREFORE PRECLUDED THE 2014 ACTION, A UNILATERAL MISTAKE DOES NOT INVALIDATE A CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING THE EMPLOYER’S TRUCK WITH THE EMPLOYER’S PERMISSION AND WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).
Where the State Is a Potential Joint Tortfeasor Which Cannot Be Joined In the Supreme Court Action with the Other Defendant (Because the State Must Be Sued in the Court of Claims), the Jury in the Supreme Court Trial Should Be Allowed, If Appropriate, to Apportion Damages Between the Defendant and the State
REVERSAL IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN A JURY NOTE WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COURT HAD NO DIRECT RELEVANCE TO THE CHARGED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).
THE UNLAWFUL SURVEILLANCE CONVICTION DID NOT INVOLVE “SEXUAL CONTACT” AS DEFINED BY THE PENAL LAW; THEREFORE THE 20 POINT ASSESSMENT FOR “SEXUAL CONTACT” WAS ERROR (THIRD DEPT).
SCHOOL NOT LIABLE FOR STUDENT’S FALL ON SNOW-COVERED, ICY PLAYGROUND, STUDENTS TOLD TO STAY OFF PLAYGROUND.
THE TRANSFER OF DEFENDANT’S CASE TO A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR WAS JUSTIFIED BY THE EXPLANATION OF A CONFLICT WITHIN THE DA’S OFFICE; HOWEVER, THE TRANSFER BACK TO THE DA’S OFFICE WAS NOT BASED ON AN EXPLANATION WHY THE CONFLICT WAS NO LONGER A PROBLEM; THE TRANSFER BACK TO THE DA’S OFFICE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR (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...