Preview:

[*1]


Decided on May 23, 2011
Supreme Court, Bronx County

7055/2007
Attorney for Plaintiff: Joshua N. Stein, Esq. (Greenberg & Stein, P.C.) Attorney for Defendant: Robert A. Shaw, Esq. (Ahmuty, Demers & McManus) Alexander W. Hunter Jr., J.
Upon the foregoing papers, the motion in limine by the plaintiff to preclude the testimony of defendant's accident reconstruction expert, James R. Funk, Ph.D. and biomechanical engineering expert, Richard M. Harding, BSc, MB BS, Ph.D is denied.
The cause of action underlying this claim is for personal injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiff, Alejandro Gaona-Garcia, on January 24, 2006, when the motor vehicle that was being driven by the plaintiff was struck from behind by a motor vehicle operated by the decedent, William E. Ruckel. A central issue in this case is whether the force generated by the impact between these two vehicles was sufficient to cause the plaintiff's claimed injuries.
At the outset, it must be noted that at issue are two defense experts, Dr. Funk and Dr. Harding, who are expected to testify at trial regarding separate areas of expertise. Although plaintiff's motion seeks to preclude the testimony of both experts, the bulk of plaintiff's argument focuses exclusively on the purported reasons why Dr. Harding's testimony should be deemed inadmissible by this Court. Plaintiff sets forth a plethora of case law and grounds to preclude Dr. Harding but fails to adequately address how Dr. Funk's anticipated testimony would be similarly impermissible. Therefore, this Court finds that plaintiff's cursory analysis is incomplete, at a minimum.
Both parties agree that the standard of admissibility for expert testimony in New York which is based on scientific principles or procedures is governed by the "general acceptance test" set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. Supp 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). New York courts have repeatedly declined to accept the federal standard for admitting scientific evidence established under Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993). While [*2]other states may have adopted this multi-factored analysis to assess expert testimony, New York remains "a Frye state." As such, this Court is bound by this precedent.
Plaintiff, in his motion, asserts that the Court has a twofold duty under Frye

Download 2011_51028.pdf

New York Law