Issue: What is the standard for admission of expert evidence, under New York law?
| Area of Law: | Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Expert evidence; Scientific principles or procedures; Standard for admission |
| Jurisdiction: | New York |
| Cited Cases: | 399 N.E.2d 532; 89 N.Y.2d 111; 60 N.Y.2d 296; 231 A.D.2d 678; 457 N.E.2d 717; 674 N.E.2d 322; 526 N.Y.S.2d 476; 647 N.Y.S.2d 831; 423 N.Y.S.2d 645; 469 N.Y.S.2d 611; 157 A.D.2d 396; 515 N.Y.S.2d 819; 54 App. D.C. 46; 130 A.D.2d 705; 172 A.D.2d 494; 651 N.Y.S.2d 392; 293 F. 1013; 238 A.D.2d 559; 224 A.D.2d 570; 48 N.Y.2d 455 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 08/01/2000 |
For a discussion of whether a Motion to Renew and Reargue was timely and appropriate, see A s "Porowski v. Mason, 238 A.D.2d 559, 560, 657 N.Y.S.2d" c 1 l "Porowski v. Mason, 238 A.D.2d 559, 657 N.Y.S.2d 71 (2nd Dep’t 1997)"Porowski v. Mason, 238 A.D.2d 559, 560, 657 N.Y.S.2d 71 (2nd Dep’t 1997) (motion to reargue); A s "Cannistra v. Gibbons, 224 A.D.2d 570, 571, 639 N.Y.S" c 1 l "Cannistra v. Gibbons, 224 A.D.2d 570, 639 N.Y.S.2d 48 (2nd Dep’t 1996)"Cannistra v. Gibbons, 224 A.D.2d 570, 571, 639 N.Y.S.2d 48 (2nd Dep’t 1996) (motion to renew). See A s "Porowski v. Mason, 238 A.D.2d 559, 560, 657 N.Y.S.2d" c 1Porowski, 238 A.D.2d at 560, 657 N.Y.S.2d 71.
New York follows the long-recognized rule of A s "Frye v. U.S., 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Ct." c 1 l "Frye v. U.S., 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Ct. App. 1923)"Frye v. U.S., 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Ct. App. 1923), that expert testimony based on scientific principles or procedures is admissible after a principle or procedure has "gained general acceptance" in its specified field. See A s "People v. Wernick, 89 N.Y.2d 111, 115, 651 N.Y.S.2d " c 1 l "People v. Wernick, 89 N.Y.2d 111, 651 N.Y.S.2d 392, 674 N.E.2d 322 (1996)"People v. Wernick, 89 N.Y.2d 111, 115, 651 N.Y.S.2d 392, 674 N.E.2d 322 (1996). An expert should be allowed to offer an opinion when it would be helpful to clarify […]