I mean to pose this previously, but it slipped my mind. Check this out:
Wild v. Catholic Health System, 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 05337 (4th Dept. 2011)
“We reject the contention of Dr. Martin and her partnership, defendant Buffalo Emergency Associates, LLP (collectively, defendants), that Supreme Court exhibited bias in favor of plaintiffs or abused its “broad authority to control the courtroom, rule on the admission of evidence, elicit and clarify testimony, expedite the proceedings and to admonish counsel and witnesses when necessary” (Carlson v Porter [appeal No. 2], 53 AD3d 1129, 1132, lv denied 11 NY3d 708 [internal quotation marks omitted]). We agree with defendants, however, that the court erred in permitting plaintiffs to attempt to impeach defendants’ expert during plaintiffs’ cross-examination of that expert by playing an instructional DVD that he had helped to edit and finance, inasmuch as the expert testified that he did not accept the DVD as authoritative (see Winiarski v Harris [appeal No. 2], 78 AD3d 1556, 1557-1558). Under the circumstances of this case, however, we conclude that the error does not warrant reversal.”
2 Responses
If an expert writes a medical book that makes statements contradictory to his testimony, wouldn’t it be admissible to impeach regardless of whether it was considered authoritative?
@Slick: It hardly matters. When is the last time you cited a Fourth Department case in any courthouse south of New City and weren’t met with a sympathetic grin?