Michael Hoenig

April 13, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, reviews a recent First Department decision which reminds practitioners about the point at which a negotiated settlement becomes an enforceable contract, in turn requiring consideration of fundamental aspects of contract law: offers, acceptance and consideration. These factors can prove to be pivotal, particularly when a settlement is being negotiated while proceedings are ongoing or where a compromise is being forged while a court decision is awaited. In such circumstances, if the settlement is not nailed down and the litigators are, in effect, trying to shoot at a moving target, then, when some court ruling issues which changes the leverage in favor of one side, that party may try to renounce any claimed agreement.

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

October 17, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that, much as "other accident" evidence needs to be screened for relevance and potential for prejudice, "no-prior-accident" evidence presents recurring difficulties in products liability cases and, while such evidence can be relevant, showing absence of a defect, lack of proximate cause or nonexistence of a dangerous condition, without a proper foundation, unfair prejudice may outweigh whatever probative value it has.

By Michael Hoenig

14 minute read

March 13, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that experienced trial counsel often try to use expert testimony as a "conduit" to get inadmissible hearsay evidence to the jury. The tactic frequently succeeds because, once qualified, experts often are accorded substantial latitude in explaining the bases for their opinions as well as the reasoning process by which such conclusions were reached.

By Michael Hoenig

17 minute read

August 09, 2002 | New York Law Journal

I N OUR April, June and July columns in The New York Law Journal, 1 we reported about a seemingly reinvigorated application of the hearsay rule dooming certain kinds of expert testimony to exclusion. The renewed focus on what experts can and cannot testify about is amply reflected in recent Appellate Division, Second Department, decisions such as Wagman v. Bradshaw , 2 and Adkins v. Queens Van-Plan, Inc., 3 among others. We are not speaking here only of esoteric expert testimony about exotic scientific lite

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

August 11, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that venerable and recent case law suggests that uncontradicted, unimpeached, unrebutted expert testimony cannot simply be ignored despite the talismanic charge that the jury is the sole judge of a witness' credibility or the weight to be given to his or her testimony.

By Michael Hoenig

16 minute read

May 30, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure put a proverbial 800-pound gorilla into rooms where litigators with sizable cases toil. That gorilla is electronic discovery. In actuality the beast was always around . . .

By Michael Hoenig

14 minute read

September 13, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, reports on a disturbing new revelation that seems to call into question the sanctity of some of the medical expert testimony being rendered in a gargantuan arena of litigation.

By Michael Hoenig

9 minute read

July 12, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, reviews a recent Florida appellate decision whose significance lies in how the court distinguished between two evidentiary scenarios lawyers and even some judges all too frequently conflate or confuse.

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

January 09, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, reviews some recent case law that answers practical questions such as: If a deponent has 30 days to review and append a transcript, when does the 30-day clock begin? Also, how closely related must one be to recover for the observed death of a family member? And is e-mail reliable enough for service of process to foreign entities?

By Michael Hoenig

15 minute read

July 11, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, returns to the subject of judicial "gatekeeping," i.e., the judge's task to assure that expert testimony is not only relevant but reliable.

By Michael Hoenig

15 minute read