Key Takeaway
New York court ruling on when juries can reject expert testimony in personal injury cases.
This article is part of our ongoing evidence coverage, with 161 published articles analyzing evidence issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Williams v City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 02783 (2d Dept. 2010)
Key Takeaway
A jury cannot arbitrarily reject expert testimony—the rejection must be supported by conflicting evidence at trial or by the expert's equivocation on cross-examination. When neither basis exists, a zero-damages verdict is against the weight of the evidence.
The Medical Evidence of Pain and Awareness
Dr. Gutstein testified that the decedent’s hospital records for the 11-day period preceding his death indicated that the decedent was able to:
- Squeeze the nurse’s hand upon request
- Mouth words
- Open his eyes spontaneously and in response to verbal and visual stimuli
- Respond to tactile and painful stimuli
- Turn his head in the direction of a voice when his name was called
- Extubate himself
These records also indicated that during this time, the decedent was cognitively aware, able to control his motor and sensory movements to some degree, and had residual brain function for several days after his seizure. Based upon his review of these records, Dr. Gutstein testified that the decedent experienced pain during this time.
Free Consultation · No Fee Unless We Win
Does this apply to your situation?
Every case is different. Get a free, confidential case review from an experienced attorney who can tell you exactly where you stand.
The Court’s Two-Part Test for Rejecting Expert Testimony
“A jury’s determination not to accept expert testimony and opinion must not be arbitrary (see Calderon v Irani, 296 AD2d 778, 779). It must be supported by other testimony or by the cross-examination of the expert (id.; see Baker v Shepard, 276 AD2d 873). If the evidence presented during trial conflicts with the facts that form the basis of the expert’s opinion, or the expert equivocates on cross-examination, the jury may disregard the expert’s opinion (see Fazzone v Gourlay, 1 AD3d 678; Baker v Shepard, 276 AD2d 873).”
In this case, neither situation applied to Dr. Gutstein’s opinion. Furthermore, the evidence established that the decedent had the requisite level of awareness to sustain a claim for damages for pain and suffering. Thus, an award of zero damages was contrary to the weight of the evidence.
When a Jury May Disregard Expert Opinions
The above bolded passage encapsulates the paths a fact finder may take when evaluating expert testimony. A jury may reject an expert’s opinion only when:
- Conflicting trial evidence — Evidence presented during trial conflicts with the facts that form the basis of the expert’s opinion
- Cross-examination equivocation — The expert equivocates or wavers on cross-examination, undermining the reliability of their opinion
It is definitely something to keep in your briefcase when you are challenging or defending, on appeal, a judge’s decision to credit or not to credit the testimony of a particular expert.
Practical Implications for Personal Injury Litigation
For Plaintiffs’ Attorneys
This ruling provides a powerful tool for challenging zero-damages verdicts in personal injury cases. When experts provide uncontradicted, unequivocal testimony, and the jury awards zero damages, plaintiffs can argue the verdict was against the weight of the evidence under the Williams framework.
For Defense Attorneys
Defense counsel must ensure effective cross-examination of plaintiff’s experts or present contradictory evidence at trial to provide the jury with a rational basis for rejection. Simply hoping the jury will disbelieve the expert is not enough—without conflicting evidence or equivocation, the verdict may not survive appellate review.
For Appellate Practice
In car accident claims and medical malpractice cases across Long Island and New York City, this two-part test serves as a critical framework for evaluating whether a jury’s treatment of expert testimony was proper. The standard applies equally to both plaintiff and defense experts and governs appellate review of damages awards that appear inconsistent with the expert evidence presented.
Related Articles
- Expert Competency and Medical Literature in New York Medical Malpractice and No-Fault Cases
- An expert can testify about the standard of care of a “sub-specialist” in appropriate cases
- Understanding Article 10 Evidentiary Issues: Expert Witness Testimony and Hearsay Rules in New York Courts
- Understanding Foundation Requirements in Medical Malpractice Expert Testimony
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
About This Topic
Evidentiary Issues in New York Litigation
The rules of evidence determine what information a court or arbitrator may consider in deciding a case. In New York no-fault and personal injury practice, evidentiary issues arise constantly — from the admissibility of business records and medical reports to the foundation requirements for expert testimony and the application of hearsay exceptions. These articles examine how New York courts apply evidentiary rules in insurance and injury litigation, with practical guidance for building admissible evidence at every stage of a case.
161 published articles in Evidence
Keep Reading
More Evidence Analysis
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
New York's CPLR 2106 permits affirmations in place of many sworn documents. See the 2024 and 2025 changes, exceptions, and historical case notes.
Feb 18, 2026
Expert Witness in Car Accident Lawsuits
Learn how expert witnesses in New York car accident lawsuits help establish fault, causation, and damages through accident reconstruction, medical testimony, and economic analysis.
May 14, 2025
A Frye hearing is required where two sides have opposing literature on a contested novel service
Frye hearing required when experts present conflicting literature on novel medical theories. Court analysis of prenatal neuroblastoma detection standards.
Oct 27, 2016
The doctor himself could not get his bills into evidence
Court rejects doctor's testimony on billing records foundation in NY no-fault case, finding gaps in witness knowledge of separate billing company procedures.
Apr 11, 2013
Why don't Defendant's start to use the Notice to Admit to establish their Prima Facie? Am I missing something?
Exploring whether defendants can use Notices to Admit to establish prima facie cases in New York no-fault insurance litigation and departmental differences.
Jul 1, 2010
NY Medical Necessity Challenges: Continental Medical Case Analysis
Analyzing NY no-fault medical necessity challenges from Continental Medical v.
Feb 26, 2009Frequently Asked Questions
Common Questions About This Topic
4 answers from the firm's New York personal-injury and employment-law practice. Click any question to expand.
What did the Second Department rule in Williams v City of New York about expert testimony?
The court held that a jury's rejection of expert testimony must not be arbitrary—it must be supported by other testimony or by cross-examination of the expert. When neither condition was met regarding the expert's opinion that the decedent experienced pain, the zero-damages award was against the weight of the evidence.
When can a jury reject expert testimony in a New York personal injury case?
A jury may reject expert testimony in two situations: (1) when evidence presented at trial conflicts with the facts forming the basis of the expert's opinion, or (2) when the expert equivocates on cross-examination. Outside these circumstances, the jury cannot arbitrarily disregard expert opinions.
What is the standard for pain and suffering damages when awareness is disputed?
Under New York law, to sustain a claim for pain and suffering damages, the plaintiff must establish that the decedent or injured party had the requisite level of awareness. Evidence of cognitive awareness, motor and sensory control, and responsiveness to stimuli can support such a claim.
How does this ruling affect personal injury cases on Long Island and in New York City?
This decision provides important guidance for both plaintiffs and defendants on appeal. When challenging or defending a jury's decision to credit or discredit expert testimony, attorneys must analyze whether the rejection was supported by conflicting evidence or effective cross-examination.
Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a evidence matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
