Skip to main content
Attacking an expert based upon his religion leads to reversal
Evidence

Attacking an expert based upon his religion leads to reversal

By Jason Tenenbaum 8 min read

Key Takeaway

Court of Appeals reverses civil commitment case where prosecutor attacked expert witness based on religious beliefs during cross-examination, violating fair trial standards.

This article is part of our ongoing evidence coverage, with 160 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.

Matter of State of New York v Andrew O., 2011 NY Slip Op 02715 (2011)

This from the Court of Appeals.  In a Mental Health Law Article 10 sexual management proceeding, the Attorney General commenced a Civil Commitment proceeding against a felon convicted of a sexual offense who was nearing his release date from prison.  A jury trial occurred and the State proved through clear and convincing evidence that the soon to be released felon required management in accordance with Article 10.  Supreme Court, after a subsequent bench trial on the issue of a disposition, found that civil commitment, as opposed to a community based program, was appropriate.

The Court of Appeals following an affirmance by the Appellate Division reversed.  This is where this post becomes relevant.

The Assistant Attorney General did the following on cross-examination:

  1. The State’s attorney attacked the expert’s credibility on the basis of his religious beliefs and affiliation, among other things. For example, during cross-examination, he asked the expert, a psychologist, about his religion of Yoism, which the expert described as similar to Unitarianism; this religion’s basic tenets; and whether Yoism was based upon a historical text. Andrew O.’s counsel objected repeatedly and fruitlessly to this line of questioning ”

2)Closing statement: “He also warned the jurors that there “was a child out there” who would be affected by their decision, and asked rhetorically if they “want another victim to have to come in to find mental abnormality.”

Reversed.  You cannot call people monsters (or insinuate it).  Just leave the substance of the statement in closing vague and let the jury come to the natural conclusion on their own.  There is a good chance they will.  Also, you cannot go attacking experts on the religion they practice.  To be honest, I still cannot believe attorneys (whether civil or criminal) are still engaging in this practice.  It is every disheartening.

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.

160 published articles in Evidence

Common 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.

How are expert witnesses used in New York personal injury cases?

Expert witnesses provide specialized opinion testimony that helps the court or jury understand complex issues like medical causation, injury severity, future care needs, economic losses, and engineering defects. Under New York law, expert testimony must be based on facts in evidence, the expert's professional knowledge, or a combination of both. The expert must be qualified by training, education, or experience in the relevant field. Expert disclosure requirements under CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) require parties to identify their experts and provide detailed summaries before trial.

Was this article helpful?

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum

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.

24+ years in practice 1,000+ appeals written 100K+ no-fault cases $100M+ recovered

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.

Jason Tenenbaum, Personal Injury Attorney serving Long Island, Nassau County and Suffolk County

About the Author

Jason Tenenbaum

Jason Tenenbaum is a personal injury attorney serving Long Island, Nassau & Suffolk Counties, and New York City. Admitted to practice in NY, NJ, FL, TX, GA, MI, and Federal courts, Jason is one of the few attorneys who writes his own appeals and tries his own cases. Since 2002, he has authored over 2,353 articles on no-fault insurance law, personal injury, and employment law — a resource other attorneys rely on to stay current on New York appellate decisions.

Education
Syracuse University College of Law
Experience
24+ Years
Articles
2,353+ Published
Licensed In
7 States + Federal

Discussion

Comments (11)

Archived from the original blog discussion.

RZ
Raymond Zuppa
Some government lawyers (I was once a government lawyer) — especially with DA’s offices; the A.G.s Office and the U.S. Attorney — have power trip problems. (Definitely not the Corp Counsel) I’ve worked with them and I have seen it as defense counsel. Some are nice as hell. But with the power trip ones the conduct is reinforced by the way their former colleagues — now judges — coddle and favor them. I am not at all surprised by the above and would have expected it coming from there. I had a boss — a bureau chief — threaten to beat a witness if he did not testify the way the boss wanted him to testify. After multiple years in prison the Defendant got out because of that and other bad things done by the prosecution. You know they show up at the office with sun glasses on in the middle of winter. Dressed real spiffy. Lots of gel. They like to make statements during plea allocutions. “I am putting the Defendant on notice that if he does this again I am going to try the case and send him to prison” I heard one say. I was in Court actually with the guys office. I couldn’t help but blurt out: “Why don’t you try it now.” Everyone laughed at the guy. I left real quick. They guy was going to whine. They’re not the school yard bullies. They’re the guys that hid from the school yard bullies. The things my eyes have seen … doctor my eyes. Can you sew them shut … A little Jackson Browne and Alice in Chains.
J
JT Author
I can tell you that I would have had some not nice words on the record. By the way, do you love how the Government usually makes a motion in limine before the trial to prohibit speak objections?
N
nycoolbreez
The cross-examination could have been handled better but I think in this case the questions were fair game. The Expert is testifying to the jury to help explain why it is that he as a psychologist believes the convicted sex offender does not suffer from a mental abnormality. Don’t you think that if a witness is one of this religion’s co-founders the jury should be allowed to exercise their common sense when they evaluate his testimony in the jury room? Don’t you think the tenents of the religion he founded should be there for the jury to look at? Just because he is a psychologist does not mean he is a credible witness or that the jury cannot use their common sense to reject this guys opinion. An expert like this puts themselves out there for this type of scrutiny; their science, metholdology, and credibiluty are all fair game. Joseph Smith the founder of the Mormons, LDS to be politically correct, used to look thru a magic stones to find water and lost tools in upstate NY before the angel Maroni appeared to him and showed him how to read the golden plates. I am not casting aspersions towards the Mormons or their beliefs I am just saying, shouldn’t a good lawyer ask those questions when we are talking about a convicted sex offender going back on the streets. any trial attorney worth her salt has impermissibly used speak objections to coach a witness or inform a judge or jury as to a fact.
J
JT Author
He could’ve intimated it. The attorney did not have to come on out and attack the guy’s religion, or to start with the you don’t want this guy on the streets routine. Innuendo works wonders.
S
Sun
Urgent request for the insurer appellant’s motion for leave to court of appeals regarding LMK. Plz forward through NFP if you have it, or to me directly if you are one of the chosen few who have been provided the email address for my underground command bunker.
S
Sun
BTW, this was indeed a poor call by the trial judge. Impeaching based upon religion? Seriously? Did we just enact Sharia law???
N
nycoolbreez
what if it is acceptable in one’s religion to lie? what if in one’s religion there is no obligation to tell the truth to those who are not entitled to it? What if in this witness’ religion getting a person free from the confinement of oppression outweighed the obligationt to tell the truth? Why can’t the witness’ religion go to their methodology? Would it be fair to impeach an expert witness based upon religion in a terrorism trial? I am not saying what was done here was done well or done with respect, but why isnt the jury entitled to hear it if done well or respectfully? most people dont get subtely or sarcasm let alone jurors
EG
Eva Gaspari
I agree with cool breez. I am already fashioning my new cross for use against peer review doctors: “You hold a medical degree, Dr. And yet you believe that a virgin birthed a child, and that that child subsequently died and was risen from the dead?” “And what in your medical training has led you to this belief?”
LR
Larry Rogak
I would think that attacking a witness’s religion would not play well with most juries. Doesn’t sound like a trial tactic I would recommend to anyone. Now maybe if a particular witness’s beliefs were relevant to some element of a cause of action or defense, as “nycoolbreez” suggested above, it might be a permissible course of inquiry. After all, some people do distort the teachings of various religions in order to rationalize criminal or obnoxious behavior. But if I were a judge I would hold a sidebar first to find out exactly where the line of questioning was going.
LR
Larry Rogak
@Eva: To quote Archie Bunker: “Faith is when you believe things that nobody in their right mind would believe.” But that cross-exam question you proposed is worthy of a major motion picture scene. I’d like to see Jack Nicholson as the cross-examining attorney and Kevin Spacey as the doctor on the stand.
LR
Larry Rogak
As an aside, one might muse about the fact that our courtrooms all have the words “In God We Trust” on the wall, but the same is not permitted in public schools. I take no side either way — I just think it’s inconsistent.

Legal Resources

Understanding New York Evidence Law

New York has a unique legal landscape that affects how evidence cases are litigated and resolved. The state's court system includes the Civil Court (for claims up to $25,000), the Supreme Court (the primary trial court for unlimited jurisdiction), the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts), the Appellate Division (divided into four Departments, with the Second Department covering Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and several upstate counties), and the Court of Appeals (the state's highest court). Each court has its own procedural requirements, local rules, and case-assignment practices that can significantly impact the outcome of your case.

For evidence matters on Long Island, cases are typically filed in Nassau County Supreme Court (at the courthouse in Mineola) or Suffolk County Supreme Court (in Riverhead). No-fault arbitrations are heard through the American Arbitration Association, which assigns arbitrators throughout the metropolitan area. Workers' compensation claims go to the Workers' Compensation Board, with hearings at district offices across the state. Understanding which forum is appropriate for your case — and the specific procedural rules that apply — is essential for a successful outcome.

The procedural landscape in New York also includes important timing requirements that can affect your case. Most civil actions are subject to statutes of limitations ranging from one year (for intentional torts and claims against municipalities) to six years (for contract actions). Personal injury cases generally have a three-year deadline under CPLR 214(5), while medical malpractice claims must be filed within two and a half years under CPLR 214-a. No-fault insurance claims have their own regulatory deadlines, including 30-day filing requirements for applications and 45-day deadlines for provider claims. Understanding and complying with these deadlines is critical — missing a filing deadline can permanently bar your claim, regardless of how strong your case may be on the merits.

Attorney Jason Tenenbaum regularly practices in all of these venues. His office at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, NY 11746, is centrally located on Long Island, providing convenient access to courts and offices throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City. Whether you need representation in a no-fault arbitration, a personal injury trial, an employment discrimination hearing, or an appeal to the Appellate Division, the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. brings $24+ years of real courtroom experience to your case. If you have questions about the legal issues discussed in this article, call (516) 750-0595 for a free, no-obligation consultation.

New York's substantive law also presents distinct challenges. In motor vehicle cases, the no-fault system under Insurance Law Article 51 provides first-party benefits regardless of fault, but limits the right to sue for non-economic damages unless the plaintiff establishes a "serious injury" under one of nine statutory categories. This threshold — codified at Insurance Law Section 5102(d) — requires medical evidence showing more than a minor or subjective injury, and courts have developed detailed standards for each category. Fractures must be documented through imaging studies. Claims of permanent consequential limitation or significant limitation of use require quantified range-of-motion testing with comparison to norms. The 90/180-day category demands proof that the plaintiff was unable to perform substantially all of their usual daily activities for at least 90 of the 180 days following the accident.

In employment discrimination cases, the legal standards vary depending on whether the claim arises under state or local law. The New York State Human Rights Law employs a burden-shifting framework: the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case by showing membership in a protected class, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision. If the employer meets this burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the stated reason is pretextual. The New York City Human Rights Law, by contrast, applies a broader standard, asking whether the plaintiff was treated less well than other employees because of a protected characteristic.

Free Consultation — No Upfront Fees

Injured on Long Island?
We Fight for What You Deserve.

Serving Nassau County, Suffolk County, and all of New York City. You pay nothing unless we win.

The Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. has been fighting for the rights of injured New Yorkers since 2002. With over 24 years of experience handling personal injury, no-fault insurance, employment discrimination, and workers' compensation cases, Jason Tenenbaum brings the legal knowledge and courtroom experience your case demands. Every consultation is free and confidential, and we work on a contingency fee basis — meaning you pay absolutely nothing unless we recover compensation for you.

Available 24/7  ·  No fees unless you win  ·  Serving Long Island & NYC

Injured? Don't Wait.

Get Your Free Case Evaluation Today

No fees unless we win — available 24/7 for emergencies.

Call Now Free Review