Key Takeaway
Fourth Department reverses $44 million liability verdict, ordering fourth new trial while criticizing attorney conduct in complex evidentiary case.
This article is part of our ongoing evidence coverage, with 128 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.
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.
Related Articles
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.
128 published articles in Evidence
Keep Reading
More Evidence Analysis
CPLR § 2106 Amendment Eliminates Affidavit Notarization Requirement: What This Means for New York Litigation
NY CPLR 2106 amendment eliminates notarized affidavits and certificates of conformity. Learn how this changes litigation practice. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 18, 2026When the trial court in a bench trial does not assess credibility
Learn when NY appellate courts can review bench trial credibility findings. Expert legal analysis of appellate standards. Call 516-750-0595 for consultation.
Nov 3, 2019Oral application granted (untimely papers accepted) and the deeming acceptable of an affirmation of a physician in a different specialty
Court grants oral application accepting untimely expert papers and physician affirmation from different specialty in Buffalo General Hospital case.
Jun 18, 2012An account stated must be supported by evidence in admissible form
New York court rules that account stated claims require proper business records foundation under CPLR 4518, not just submission of credit card statements without authentication.
Oct 6, 2010A civil court judge correctly rejects a so-called Wagman based peer hearsay challenge
New York civil court judge correctly rejects Wagman-based peer hearsay challenge in medical expert testimony case, analyzing evidentiary standards for expert opinions.
Nov 26, 2009A CPLR 3101 lesson
Analysis of Cruz v City of New York regarding CPLR 3101 discovery rules, witness testimony, and evidence admission in New York personal injury litigation.
Oct 30, 2015Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What types of evidence are important in no-fault and personal injury cases?
Key types of evidence include medical records and bills, police accident reports, diagnostic imaging (MRI, X-ray, CT scans), expert medical opinions, business records from insurance companies and providers, witness statements, photographs of injuries and the accident scene, and employment records for lost wage claims. The rules of evidence under New York CPLR and the Evidence Rules govern what is admissible in court proceedings.
What is the business records exception to hearsay in New York?
Under CPLR 4518(a), a business record is admissible if it was made in the regular course of business, it was the regular course of business to make such a record, and the record was made at or near the time of the event recorded. This exception is crucial in no-fault litigation because insurers' denial letters, claim logs, and peer review reports are often offered as business records. The foundation for the business record must be established through testimony or a certification.
What role does diagnostic imaging play as evidence in injury cases?
Diagnostic imaging — MRIs, CT scans, X-rays, and EMG/NCV studies — provides objective evidence of injuries such as herniated discs, fractures, ligament tears, and nerve damage. Courts and arbitrators give significant weight to imaging evidence because it is less subjective than physical examination findings. In serious injury threshold cases under §5102(d), imaging evidence corroborating clinical findings strengthens the plaintiff's case considerably.
How do New York courts handle surveillance evidence in personal injury cases?
Insurance companies frequently hire investigators to conduct video surveillance of plaintiffs to challenge injury claims. Under CPLR 3101(i), a party must disclose surveillance materials prior to trial, including films, photographs, and videotapes. Surveillance evidence can be powerful for impeachment if it contradicts the plaintiff's testimony about limitations. However, courts may preclude surveillance that was not properly disclosed or that is misleadingly edited.
What is hearsay and why does it matter in New York litigation?
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and it is generally inadmissible under New York evidence rules. In no-fault and personal injury cases, hearsay issues frequently arise with medical records, peer review reports, denial letters, and witness statements. Key exceptions include the business records rule (CPLR 4518), party admissions, excited utterances, and statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment. Understanding hearsay rules is essential because improperly admitted or excluded evidence can change the outcome of a case.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
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.