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 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.
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:
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 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.
Related Articles
- Understanding Article 10 Evidentiary Issues: Expert Witness Testimony and Hearsay Rules in New York Courts
- 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 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![Business records (CPLR 4518[a]) back to the Appellate Division](https://cdn.jtnylaw.com/blog/business-records-cplr-4518a-back-to-the-appellate-division.avif)
Business records (CPLR 4518[a]) back to the Appellate Division
A significant business records evidence case returns to the Appellate Division after the Appellate Term's controversial interpretation of CPLR 4518(a)
Jul 7, 2011
Intervenor major medical insurance carrier tried to recoup settlement proceeds between the injured person and the tortofeasor – but to no avail
Intervenor health insurance carrier fails to recoup settlement proceeds due to inadequate proof of business records and prima facie case requirements in NY court.
Mar 1, 2010
Different peer doctor's testimony acceptable
Court ruling clarifies that insurance companies can use different expert witnesses to testify about peer review reports in no-fault cases, expanding defense flexibility.
Nov 30, 2018
The learned treatise exception to the hearsay rule
New York courts allow learned treatises as evidence when experts recognize publications as standards of care, even without using "authoritative" language.
Jul 31, 2015Was 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.
