Expert witnesses
Author | Helen E. Freedman/Gerald Lebovits |
Pages | 373-426 |
16-1
CHAPTER 16
EXPERT WITNESSES
I. PRINCIPLES
A. General Points
§16:10 Denition and Distinctions
§16:20 Standards Governing Admissibility
§16:30 Qualication as an Expert
§16:40 Basis for Expert Testimony
§16:45 Conduit Hearsay Is Not Allowed
§16:50 Weight Accorded Expert Testimony
§16:60 Subjects of Expert Testimony — Testimony Admissible
§16:65 Subjects of Expert Testimony — Testimony Not Admissible
B. Procedure
§16:70 Disclosure Requirements
§16:80 Compelling Expert Testimony
§16:90 Objecting to Expert Witness Testimony
§16:100 Examining Expert Witness at Trial
II. OBJECTIONS
§16:110 Lack of Qualications
§16:115 Lack of Adequate Basis
§16:116 [Reserved]
§16:117 Opinion Based on Hearsay
§16:120 Ultimate Issue
§16:130 Inappropriate Hypothetical Question
§16:140 Scientic Evidence
§16:150 Identication Evidence
(is page intentionally left blank.)
16-3 EXPERT WITNESSES §16:20
I. PRINCIPLES
A. General Points
§16:10 Definition and Distinctions
An expert is a person with sucient background, experience, or study to express an opinion on questions
of fact relating to skills, science, medicine, business, or technology not within the range of ordinary training or
experience. Meiselman v. Crown Heights Hosp., Inc., 285 N.Y.389, 34 N.E.2d 367 (1941); Matter of Sanchez, 141
Misc.2d 1066, 535 N.Y.S.2d 937 (Fam. Ct., Bronx County, 1988). To qualify as an expert, a showing must be
made that the witness is skilled in the profession to which the subject relates. Meiselman v. Crown Heights Hosp.,
Inc., 285 N.Y.389, 34 N.E.2d 367 (1941); People v. Greene, 153 A.D.2d 439, 552 N.Y.S.2d 640 (2d Dept. 1990);
for qualication of expert, see §16:30.
Admission of expert testimony lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. People v. Brown, 97 N.Y.2d
500, 743 N.Y.S.2d 374 (2002); People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 152, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361 (2001); Price v. New York City
Housing Authority, 92 N.Y.2d 553, 684 N.Y.S2d 143 (1998); People v. Miller, 91 N.Y.2d 372, 670 N.Y.S.2d 978
(1998); Dufel v. Green, 84 N.Y.2d 795, 622 N.Y.S.2d 900 (1995); Mariano v. Schuylerville Central School District,
309 A.D.2d 1116. 766 N.Y.S.2d 388 (3d Dept. 2003); Heraud v. Weissman, 276 A.D.2d 376, 714 N.Y.S.2d 476
(1st Dept. 2000). In general, expert witness testimony is admissible where the conclusions to be drawn depend on
professional or scientic knowledge or skill not within the fact nder’s range of ordinary training or intelligence.
Dufel v. Green, 84 N.Y.2d 795, 622 N.Y.S.2d 900 (1995); De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 469 N.Y.S.2d
Lay witnesses are generally conned to giving testimony concerning facts or observations. Giraldez v. City of
New York, 214 A.D.2d 461, 625 N.Y.S.2d 517 (1st Dept. 1995); People v. Russell, 165 A.D.2d 327, 567 N.Y.S.2d
548 (2d Dept. 1991), a ’d 79 N.Y.2d 1024, 584 N.Y.S.2d 428 (1992). Lay witnesses are thus precluded from draw-
ing conclusions or oering opinions with respect to “ultimate issues” in a case. LaPenta v. Loca-Bik Ltee Transport
et al., 238 A.D.2d 913, 661 N.Y.S.2d 132 (4th Dept. 1997) (police ocer’s notation that accident was caused by
“plainti’s inattention” was an improper invasion of jury’s province).
In contrast, expert witnesses may give opinion testimony where the conclusions to be drawn from the facts
depend on professional or scientic knowledge or skill not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence.
People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1983); People v. Rivers, 18 N.Y.3d 222, 960 N.E.2d 419 (2011).
And in some situations, experts may oer opinions about ultimate issues. Admissibility turns on whether there is
another way to state or describe the facts to the jurors in a manner that enables them to form an accurate judgment,
and no better evidence than such opinion is available. People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1983);
People v. Rivers, 18 N.Y.3d 222, 960 N.E.2d 419 (2011); Brullo v. Schiro, 239 A.D.2d 309, 657 N.Y.S.2d 92 (2d
Dept. 1997); Sanders v. Otis Elevator Co., 232 A.D.2d 327, 649 N.Y.S.2d 19 (1st Dept. 1996); but see Faber v. New
York City Housing Authority, 258 A.D.2d 394, 685 N.Y.S. 691 (1st Dept. 1999) (plainti’s expert was properly
precluded from testifying as to ultimate issue, i.e., negligence); for permissible subjects for expert testimony, see
§16:60; for opinion testimony by lay witness, see Ch. 15.
§16:20 Standards Governing Admissibility
Generally, a party must establish the following foundation before eliciting expert testimony at trial:
• ere is a need for an expert, shown in one of the two following ways:
• Expert testimony would help clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge beyond
the ken of typical jurors. People v. Inoa, 25 N.Y.3d 466, 34 N.E.3d 839 (2015); People v. Brown, 97
N.Y.2d 500, 743 N.Y.S.2d 374 (2002); People v. Lee, 96 N.Y.2d 152, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361 (2001); De
Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611 (1983); People v. Rivers, 18 N.Y.3d 222, 960
N.E.2d 419 (2011) (expert testimony regarding cause of re in arson trial was unnecessary because
the evidence adduced at trial conclusively established that the res were intentionally set).
• e subject matter is outside the common knowledge and experience of ordinary jurors. See Price v.
New York City Housing Authority, 92 N.Y.2d 553, 684 N.Y.S2d 143 (1998) (expert testimony concern-
ing likelihood of criminal to gain access whether or not lock was properly functioning was admissible);
Sawyer v. Dreis & Krump Manufacturing, 67 N.Y.2d 328, 502 N.Y.S.2d 696 (1986) (expert testimony
To continue reading
Request your trial