Why Trust This Analysis
This article is part of our ongoing expert journals and treatises coverage, with 7 published articles analyzing expert journals and treatises 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.
Expert witness testimony plays a crucial role in personal injury litigation, often serving as the bridge between complex technical concepts and jury understanding. However, the line between legitimate expert analysis and inadmissible speculation can sometimes blur, particularly when attorneys attempt to maximize the impact of their hired experts. A recent New York appellate decision provides valuable insight into how courts evaluate the admissibility and scope of expert testimony, especially when one party challenges whether an expert has overstepped professional boundaries.
The case highlights the ongoing tension in litigation between zealous advocacy and the evidentiary rules that govern what experts can and cannot tell a jury. Understanding these boundaries is essential for both attorneys and clients involved in personal injury cases where technical or professional expertise is needed to establish liability or damages.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Kohler v Barker, 2017 NY Slip Op 01344 (2d Dept. 2017)
“The admissibility and scope of expert testimony is a determination within the discretion of the trial court (see Price v New York City Hous. Auth., 92 NY2d 553, 558; Doviak v Finkelstein & Partners, LLP, 137 AD3d 843, 847; Galasso v 400 Exec. Blvd., LLC, 101 AD3d 677, 678). Generally, expert opinion is proper when it would help clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge, possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror (see De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307; Matter of Islam v Lee, 115 AD3d 952, 953). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting the testimony of the defendants’ expert. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the testimony of the defendants’ expert was based on facts in the record and his own analysis, not speculation”
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.
This is another expert witness case. Worth seeing how far you can push the envelope with the hired witness.
Key Takeaway
The Second Department reaffirmed that trial courts have broad discretion in determining the admissibility of expert testimony. The key distinction lies in whether the expert’s opinions are grounded in factual evidence and professional analysis rather than mere speculation. This case demonstrates that aggressive use of expert witnesses can be successful when their testimony remains tethered to the factual record.
Related Articles
- Expert Competency and Medical Literature in New York Medical Malpractice and No-Fault Cases
- Preclusion of bio-mechanical opinion
- Frye hearing requirements when opposing literature exists on contested novel services
- The Critical Role of Medical Literature in Expert Testimony
- No-Fault Insurance Defense
- Legal Encyclopedia
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.
Keep Reading
More Expert journals and treatises Analysis
Preclusion of bio-mechanical opinion
Dovberg v Laubach case analysis: Second Department precludes biomechanical expert testimony lacking proper foundation in peer-reviewed literature and empirical data.
Oct 23, 2017
A Frye hearing is required where two sides have opposing literature on a contested novel service
Frye hearing required when experts present conflicting literature on novel medical theories. Court analysis of prenatal neuroblastoma detection standards.
Oct 27, 2016
The Critical Role of Medical Literature in Expert Testimony
Expert analysis of Rowe v Fisher on medical literature requirements for expert testimony. Personal injury case insights for Long Island and NYC.
Mar 10, 2011
An interesting discovery case involving the right to obtain alcohol treatment records
Expert analysis of medical records discovery rights in NY personal injury cases. L.T. v Teva Pharms case study. Call (516) 750-0595 for consultation.
Mar 24, 2010
Expert Competency and Medical Literature in New York Medical Malpractice and No-Fault Cases
New York court guidance on expert competency and medical literature use in medical malpractice and no-fault cases. Essential reading for Long Island attorneys.
Feb 21, 2010
Expert Testimony and Medical Journals: Navigating New York Courts
Zito, Lenzini and Brown address different uses of medical literature in New York expert evidence: scientific foundation, impeachment and reliance.
Oct 10, 2009Was 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 expert journals and treatises 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.
