Key Takeaway
Court wrongly precluded expert witnesses despite no prejudice, emphasizing case timeline over proper CPLR 4404 analysis in no-fault insurance dispute.
This article is part of our ongoing 4404(a) & weight of evidence review coverage, with 9 published articles analyzing 4404(a) & weight of evidence review 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.
Market St. Surgical Ctr. v Global Liberty Ins. Co., 2018 NY Slip Op 51822(U)(App. Term 2d Dept. 2018)
I can honestly say so much about what happened here, but I am going to bite my tongue in the name of scholarship.
“At a nonjury trial, plaintiff’s attorney moved to preclude defendant’s expert witnesses on the grounds that disclosure of those witnesses was untimely and that disclosure had been made by facsimile transmission, a method of notice which plaintiff’s counsel had previously rejected. Defense counsel argued that there would be no prejudice to plaintiff as a result of the testimony, and counsel advised the court that his witnesses were present to testify. On February 9, 2016, the Civil Court granted plaintiff’s motion to preclude the witnesses, stating that it did not think that prejudice was an issue but “we have to move these cases timely.” On February 24, 2016, defendant timely moved, pursuant to CPLR 4404 (b), to set aside the decision, and plaintiff opposed the motion. By order entered January 6, 2017, the Civil Court denied defendant’s motion.”
“While defendant’s service of the expert witness notices at issue should have been more prompt (see Cutsogeorge, 264 AD2d at 754) and made by mail as requested by plaintiff, the Civil Court erred in precluding defendant’s expert witnesses, as the record clearly demonstrates that there was no showing by plaintiff that defendant had intentionally or willfully failed to promptly disclose, or that plaintiff had been prejudiced.”
Here is my favorite line from what happened in Court: ““All right. Based on all of this I don’t think prejudice is an issue here. The matter is we have to move these cases timely. I will grant your motion.” “Once again, as I said I may not be correct. One thing, I am consistent. I could be consistently wrong with that. I’m going to grant the motion to preclude.”
How could I not appeal this? But I at least have the judge a crack through a 4404(b) motion to do the right thing. She did not take me up on my invitation. Guess she was consistent…
Related Articles
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 4404(a) & weight of evidence review Analysis
NY Insurance Subpoena Enforcement and Fair Hearing Rights
Expert analysis of NY insurance subpoena enforcement and fair hearing rights. Global Liberty case shows importance of due process. Call 516-750-0595.
Feb 3, 2019Mr. Ortega, why did you lie to us?
Ortega v Healthcare Services Group case analysis - plaintiff's incomplete disclosure of health history leads to jury verdict favoring defendant on causation and damages.
Nov 15, 2018Shoulder surgery with physical therapy – valued at $550,000
Court reduces $1.15M jury award to $550K for shoulder surgery case, highlighting how trial courts evaluate excessive pain and suffering damages in personal injury claims.
Nov 14, 20181.5 million dollar scope and post-concussive injury
$1.5M jury award upheld for bus accident victim with cervical/lumbar disc injuries, torn menisci, and post-concussive syndrome under NY Insurance Law 5102(d).
Jul 21, 2018Failure to provide proof of Medicare status kills post-verdict interest
Court vacates post-verdict interest when plaintiff fails to provide Medicare status affidavit required under CPLR 5003-a for defendant's federal reporting compliance.
Apr 17, 2015Another really intelligent appeal
Court of Appeals decision on no-fault insurance claims showing plaintiff's burden of proof and proper use of denial forms as evidence in New York cases.
Aug 18, 2011Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a CPLR 4404(a) motion?
A CPLR 4404(a) motion asks the trial court to set aside a jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence or to direct judgment as a matter of law. It is filed after trial and gives the trial judge an opportunity to correct verdicts that are not supported by the evidence.
What standard does the court apply to a weight of evidence challenge?
The court examines whether the jury could have reached its verdict on any fair interpretation of the evidence. A verdict will be set aside only if it could not have been reached on any reasonable view of the evidence. This is a high standard that gives considerable deference to the jury.
Can a new trial be ordered after a weight of evidence motion?
Yes. If the court finds the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, it may order a new trial. Alternatively, the court may conditionally order a new trial unless one party consents to a reduced or increased award (additur/remittitur).
Was this article helpful?
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.
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 4404(a) & weight of evidence review 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.