Key Takeaway
Fourth Department reverses $44 million liability verdict, ordering fourth new trial while criticizing attorney conduct in complex evidentiary case.
The Fourth Department’s decision in Smolinski v Smolinski serves as a stark reminder of how procedural missteps and attorney conduct can derail even the most valuable cases. This appellate ruling reversed a substantial $44 million jury verdict and ordered yet another new trial — the fourth in this protracted litigation. The case highlights critical evidentiary issues that can make or break a case, while also demonstrating the court’s willingness to sharply criticize attorney behavior when it undermines the judicial process.
Cases like this underscore the importance of meticulous preparation and professional conduct throughout litigation, particularly when dealing with complex evidentiary matters that can significantly impact trial outcomes.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Smolinski v Smolinski, 2010 NY Slip Op 08468 (4th Dept. 2010)
I admit that I failed to pick up this case on my own. A nice email from the law journal with their cases of interest was transmitted on my Blackberry today. Having found a free moment while grabbing breakfast, I opened the email and saw this case. All I could say is (edited for content). This case presents some interesting evidentiary issues that arose. But the behavior of the attorneys in this case and the lashing the attorneys received from this court was a little upsetting, even when (according to the law journal) this case had a jury value of 44 million dollars. Note the word had since the liability verdict was reversed for a new trial – the fourth new one.
Key Takeaway
The Smolinski decision demonstrates that even high-value cases can be completely derailed by attorney misconduct and evidentiary errors. When courts order multiple new trials, it signals serious procedural failures that compromise the integrity of the judicial process. This case serves as a cautionary tale about the critical importance of proper evidentiary foundations and maintaining professional standards throughout litigation, regardless of the potential monetary value at stake.
