Key Takeaway
Court rules that late expert disclosure doesn't automatically bar expert evidence in summary judgment motions when failure wasn't willful and no prejudice shown.
Expert witness disclosure requirements under New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules can create significant challenges for litigants. CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) mandates that parties disclose their expert witnesses before filing a note of issue and certificate of readiness. However, what happens when a party fails to meet this deadline? The Second Department’s decision in Yampolskiy v Baron provides important guidance on how courts should handle late expert disclosures.
This case addresses a common scenario in personal injury litigation: a defendant seeks summary judgment and submits expert materials to support their motion, but failed to properly disclose those experts under CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i). While strict adherence to disclosure rules is important, courts retain discretion to consider expert evidence even when disclosure deadlines are missed, provided certain conditions are met.
The decision reinforces that CPLR 3101(d) preclusion is not automatic and depends heavily on the specific circumstances of each case. Courts must carefully balance procedural compliance with the interests of justice.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Yampolskiy v Baron, 2017 NY Slip Op 03556 (2d Dept. 2007)
"" party’s failure to disclose its experts pursuant to CPLR 3101(d)(1)(i) prior to the filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness does not divest a court of the discretion to consider an affirmation or affidavit submitted by that party’s experts in the context of a timely motion for summary judgment” (Rivers v Birnbaum, 102 AD3d 26, 31). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s cross motion to preclude the expert materials submitted by the defendants in support of their motion for summary judgment, as there was no evidence that the failure to disclose the experts was intentional or willful, and there was no showing of prejudice to the plaintiff (see Begley v City of New York, 111 AD3d 5, 36; Salcedo v Weng Qu Ju, 106 AD3d 977, 978; Hayden v Gordon, 91 AD3d 819, 820).”
Key Takeaway
Courts maintain discretion to consider expert evidence even when disclosure deadlines are missed, provided the failure was not intentional or willful and no prejudice resulted. This decision emphasizes that procedural violations don’t automatically preclude expert testimony when justice would be better served by considering the evidence on its merits.
