The New York courts have historically viewed expert opinion with disfavor and permitted its admission only when absolutely necessary to explain a matter in issue that was beyond the understanding of jurors and “no better evidence than such opinion is attainable.” Van Wycklen v. City of Brooklyn, 118 NY 424, 429 (1890).

The reason for such antagonism towards expert opinion and expert testimony generally was that “[b]etter results will generally be reached by taking the impartial, unbiased judgments of twelve jurors of common sense and common experience than can be obtained by taking the opinions of experts, if not generally hired, at least friendly, whose opinions cannot fail generally to be warped by a desire to promote the cause in which they are enlisted.” Ferguson v. Hubbell, 97 NY 507, 514 (1884).

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]