Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses

• Author: Edward L. Birnbaum/Carl T. Grasso/Ariel E. Belen
• Pages: 219-250

CROSS:

EXPERT WITNESSES

27-1

CHAPTER 27

CROSSEXAMINATION OF

EXPERT WITNESSES

I. GENERAL POINTS

A. Right to Cross-Examine Experts

§27:01 Within Court’s Discretion

§27:02 Objection to Videotaped Testimony

§27:03 Defendant as Exper t

§27:04 Interpreters

B. Limitations on Cross-Examination of Experts

§27:10 Scope: Issues Brought out on Direct and Credibility

§27:11 Extent of Examination Within Court’s Discretion

§27:12 Inappropriate Material

§27:13 Potential for Opening Doors on Cross

§27:14 Potential for Rendering Errors Harmless

C. Objectives of Cross-Examination

§27:20 Three Objectives

II. PREPARING FOR CROSSEXAMINATION OF EXPERT

§27:30 Preparation Steps

§27:31 Identify Expert

§27:32 No Right to Depose Opposing Expert

§27:33 Obtain Information About the Exper t

§27:34 Become Familiar With Expert’s Subject

§27:35 Case Material Generated by Expert

§27:36 Draf t Areas of Questioning

III. CONDUCTING CROSSEXAMINATION

A. Tips For Cross-Examining Experts

§27:50 Whether and How to Cross

§27:51 Request Break After Direct

§27:52 Maintain Civil, but Not Bland Demeanor

§27:53 Three Tenets of Cross-Examination

§27:54 Keep Questions Short

§27:55 Avoid Multi-Part Hypotheticals

§27:56 Avoid a Dialogue

§27:57 Maintain Control of Expert

§27:58 Cut Of f Lengthy Explanations

§27:59 Control the Lengthy Response

CROSS:

EXPERT WITNESSES

New York Trial Notebook 27-2

§27:60 Do Not Give Exper t Opportunity to Fix Gaffes

§27:61 Remain Flexible

§27:62 Avoid Dead Spots

§27:63 Ask Cour t to Direct Witness to Return

§27:64 Know When to Stop

§27:65 Break Rules for Right Opportunit y

B. Challenging Expert’s Qualif‌ications

§27:70 Whether to Challenge

§27:71 Objectives in Challenging Qualif‌ications

§27:72 Expert Must Be Qualif‌ied in Area of Questioning

§27:73 Treating Physicians and Causation

§27:74 Safety Experts

§27:75 Methods of Challenging Qualif‌ications

§27:76 To Voir Dire or Not to Voir Dire

§27:77 Techniques for Challenging Qualif‌ications

C. Impeaching Expert

§27:90 Meaning of Impeachment

§27:91 Limits to Proper Impeachment

§27:92 Expert Bias or Interest

§27:93 Impeachment by Inconsistent Statement

§27:94 Impeachment Through Learned Treatise

§27:95 Foundation for Impeachment Evidence

D. Probing Foundation of Expert’s Opinion

§27:100 General Points

§27:101 Reliance on Out-of-Court Material

§27:102 Probing Foundation May Lead to Opinion Being Stricken

§27:103 Methods of Attacking Foundation

§27:104 Challenging Methodology

§27:105 Bring Out What Expert Did Not Do

§27:106 Bring Out What Expert Does Not Know

§27:107 Probe Expert’s True Conf‌idence Level

§27:108 Handwriting Experts

§27:109 Turn Opposing Expert’s Testimony to Your Advantage

§27:110 Admissions From Opposing Expert Can Lead to Dismissal

IV. RECROSS

§27:120 Scope and Objectives

§27:121 Tips and Techniques

CROSS:

EXPERT WITNESSES

27-3 Cross-Examination of Expert Witnesses §27:02

I. GENERAL POINTS

A. Right to Cross-Examine Experts

§27:01 Within Court’s Discretion

Any witness called by one side may be cross-examined by the other side. [See Ch 25.] “The scope and manner

of cross-examination ‘are left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” [Hoberg v. Shree Granesh, LLC, 85 AD3d

965, 967, 926 NYS2d 578, 580 (2d Dept 2011) (Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in



expert naturally may be cross–examined as an expert. However, a witness called by one side may be an expert, but

 -

See, e.g., In re Eight Judicial

District Asbestos Litigation, 197 AD2d 901, 602 NYS2d 452 (4th Dept 1993) (no error to allow eliciting of expert

opinion from defense witness on cross-examination); Nicolla v. Fasulo, 161 AD2d 966, 968, 557 NYS2d 539 (3d

Greenberg

v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 237 AD2d 568, 655 NYS2d 998 (2d Dept 1997) (court did not err in allowing



and the opinion was elicited in response to issues raised on direct examination). But see Cuccia v. The Brooklyn

Medical Group, 171 AD2d 836, 567 NYS2d 772 (2d Dept 1991) (where a treating physician was a member of the



him as an expert witness; point being, the expert sought to be cross-examined was not a defendant); see §27:03.

But see Daniele v. Pain Management Center of Long Island 

Daniele   

to whether non-party doctors O and S departed from accepted medical practice. The evidence at trial failed to

   





side to be able to prepare to cross examine the expert. [Adirondack Classic Design, Inc. v. Farrell, 182 AD3d 809, 814,

122 NYS3d 790, 796 (3d Dept 2020).] However, the court in its discretion may not entirely preclude testimony based

Adirondack Classic Design, Inc. v. Farrell, supra, Supreme Court

properly limited the testimony of defendant’s expert witnesses where, half-way through trial on the day that witnesses



     

   

     

to trial but was never disclosed. Although defendant asserted that the cost breakdown was created the prior night and,

thus, could not have been disclosed, the court determined that the cumulative lack of disclosure and incorrect disclosure

    

the inspection of the property and the cost breakdown. Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion.

Castaldini v. Walsh, 186

AD3d 1193, 127 NYS3d 917 (2d Dept 2020), the Second Department faulted Supreme Court’s admission into

   



3215[b], 22 NYCRR 202.46[b]), but where, as in the instant case, the defaulting defendant gives notice that he



physician was not made available for cross examination, the court should not have admitted into evidence the

  



§27:02 Objection to Videotaped Testimony

Cohen v. City of New

York