Expert Witnesses
Decisions on expert witnesses in injury cases, including who is qualified to give which opinions and what an expert’s report must show.
-
Trip on a Loose Sidewalk Paver: Owner’s Expert Inspected More Than Three Years Later, and the Dismissal Is Reversed (Velasquez v 88 Cypress, LLC, 2d Dept 2026)
A property owner asking a court to dismiss a trip-and-fall claim before trial must first show that there was no dangerous condition, that the defect was trivial, or that the owner neither created it nor had notice of it. Here, the Second Department reinstated a man’s claim that he tripped on a loose brick paver on the sidewalk in front of the defendant’s property, in part because the owner’s engineer inspected the area more than three years after the accident, with no showing that it was unchanged.
-
Bicycle Crash With a Truck: Dashcam Video and GPS Data Carry the Day, and Expert Opinions on Marijuana and Speed Are Found Speculative (Pemberton v Liberty Ashes Inc., 1st Dept 2026)
An expert’s opinion can raise a question of fact only if it rests on evidence in the record and explains how the expert reached it. Here, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of a bicyclist’s case against a truck driver and others, because the truck’s dashcam video showed that the truck had the green light and the cyclist rode through a red light, the video and testimony showed he was riding against one-way traffic, and his experts’ opinions that the driver was smoking marijuana and speeding were speculative.
-
Passenger in a Stop-Sign Crash Wins on Liability, and the Other Driver Is Back in the Case (Williams v Dia, 1st Dept 2026)
A passenger who could not have caused a crash may win on liability before trial against a driver who was negligent under either version of the events, and a ruling that one driver was at fault does not by itself let the other driver out of the case. Here, the First Department affirmed summary judgment for a passenger against the driver who faced a stop sign, put the other driver back in the case, and held that her physiatrist’s opinion, based in part on MRIs taken after both crashes, raised a question of fact on causation.
-
Did the Accident Happen? Defense Evidence, Including a Biomechanics Expert, Sends a Worker’s Labor Law 240(1) Claim to Trial (Gonzalez v Chatsworth Bldrs. LLC, 1st Dept 2026)
An injured worker may win on liability without a trial even if no one saw the accident, as long as nothing in the record contradicts his account or raises a question about his credibility. Here, the First Department modified the order to deny a worker’s motion for summary judgment under Labor Law 240(1), because a sign-out sheet, 17 statements from people at the project, a biomechanics expert, and three examining doctors, taken together, raised questions whether the accident happened at all, whether it happened as he described, and whether it caused his injuries.
-
Fall Blamed on Low Lighting in a Restaurant: The Landlord Is Out of the Case Because the Staff Set the Lights (Mella v Russian Samovar, Inc., 1st Dept 2026)
A landlord that has leased out a property, and is responsible under the lease for structural repairs, is generally not responsible for a condition that is not structural. Here, the First Department affirmed the dismissal of the claims against a restaurant’s landlord, because the low lighting the plaintiff blamed for the fall was set by the restaurant’s employees, and the plaintiff’s expert did not connect the other conditions listed to the fall.
-
Defense Neuropsychological Exam: Plaintiff’s Lawyer Kept Out, but a Psychologist of His Choosing May Observe (Hall v Trustees of Columbia Univ., 1st Dept 2026)
A person who sues for injuries may generally have a lawyer or other representative present at an examination by the defense’s doctor, but a court may limit that when the presence would keep the examiner from conducting a meaningful examination. Here, the First Department upheld an order, based on the defense expert’s unrebutted affidavit, keeping the plaintiff’s lawyer out of a defense neuropsychological examination, while allowing a licensed clinical psychologist of the plaintiff’s choosing to observe.
-
Scaffold Fall: Worker Wins on Liability as the Court Rejects a Defense Biomechanical Expert’s Opinion (Latazela v Compass Six Owner LLC, 1st Dept 2026)
An expert’s opinion that disregards consistent evidence that the injured person fell and was hurt, or does not explain how the expert reached it, may not be enough to require a trial. Here, the First Department affirmed partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) for a worker who fell 11 to 12 feet from a plank on a scaffold that moved, rejecting the defendants’ biomechanical expert’s opinion as speculative.
-
Car Crash Injury Claims Go Forward: A Biomechanical Engineer’s Report Could Not Replace a Medical Opinion (Bonilla-Acosta v Max Servs. Corp., 2d Dept 2026)
In a New York car accident case, a defendant that asks the court to dismiss an injury claim because there was no “serious injury” must first make that showing with competent medical evidence. Here, the Second Department affirmed the denial of two defendants’ motion, holding that their biomechanical engineer could speak to the forces in the crash but did not show he was qualified to give a medical opinion on whether the accident caused the injuries.
Decision Day summarizes and comments on published court decisions. It is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts. Unless an entry says otherwise, The Eskesen Law Firm did not represent any party in these cases.
Legal Help When You Need It
Fill out the form to request a consultation and we will be in touch as soon as possible.
(212) 433-4500Toll-free 1-800-321-NYLAW (1-800-321-6952)
- Calls answered live 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
- We speak English, Spanish and Portuguese.
- Main office
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1808
New York, NY 10123 - Downtown office
30 Wall Street, Suite 804
New York, NY 10005
By appointment only