Key Takeaway
Court ruling allows expert psychologist testimony based on hearsay in Mental Health Law Article 10 proceedings when used to explain opinion basis, not truth.
Matter of State of New York v Wilkes, 2010 NY Slip Op 07006 (4th Dept. 2010)
“Insofar as respondent preserved for our review his further contention that the court erred in permitting two psychologists to testify to limited amounts of hearsay information at trial in order to explain their opinions, we conclude that respondent’s contention lacks merit. Although it is a “questionable assumption” that a psychologist may “not only … express her opinion but repeat to the jury all the hearsay information on which it was based” (People v Goldstein, 6 NY3d 119, 126, cert denied 547 US 1159), it is well settled that “hearsay testimony given by experts is admissible for the limited purpose of informing the jury of the basis of the expert opinion and not for the truth of the matters related” (People v Campbell, 197 AD2d 930, 932, lv denied 83 NY2d 850; see People v Wlasiuk, 32 AD3d 674, 680, lv dismissed 7 NY3d 871; Shahram v Horwitz, M.D., 5 AD3d 1034, 1035). We thus conclude that the testimony was properly admitted after the court determined that its purpose was to explain the basis for the experts’ opinions, not to establish the truth of the hearsay material, and that any prejudice to respondent from the testimony was outweighed by its probative value in assisting the jury in understanding the basis for each expert’s opinion.”
The Fourth Department seems to agree with the Appellate Term, Second Department’s rationale in Urban v. Tristate as it relates to expert opinions based upon hearsay.
Related Articles
- Understanding Article 10 Evidentiary Issues: Expert Witness Testimony and Hearsay Rules in New York Courts
- Another Article 10 case wittles away peer hearsay
- The absence of an expert is fatal to prove causation
- Civil Court Decisions in No-Fault Insurance: When Legal Reasoning Goes Wrong
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
