Michael Hoenig

May 11, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes: In a divided decision virtually hot off the press, New York's highest court may have changed some contours of products liability law as it affects cases involving optional equipment, knowledgeable purchasers and off-product warnings. The case is Passante v. Agway Consumer Prods. Inc., a 4-3 decision issued on May 5. The majority and dissenting opinions hum along briskly together totaling only some 13 pages of slip opinion text. Don't be fooled by the relative brevity, however. There is plenty of meat to chew on and especially so when one looks beyond Passante to what the future now holds for summary judgment practice in such scenarios.

By Michael Hoenig

15 minute read

October 18, 2004 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, asks: Is a treating physician a kind of lay witness, testifying to actual facts of diagnosis and treatment unfolding from the exercise of his or her expertise, or an expert witness?

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

November 19, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, reports on three New York decisions, two by the Court of Appeals, dealing, respectively, with issues involving collateral estoppel, the proof standard to be met in opposing summary judgment and a Palsgraf-type of dispute by Appellate Division judges.

By Michael Hoenig

11 minute read

June 16, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently reminded us that an expert's ipse dixit is inadmissible. Thus, an expert "who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process."

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

August 16, 2006 | Law.com

Typically, in products liability litigation, the product involved in the accident can yield much evidence from a simple visual inspection. But sometimes it is necessary to examine the product, part or component by actually changing its condition in some manner. When the examination goes beyond mere observation and risks or entails changing the condition or appearance of the product -- a scenario referred to as "destructive testing" -- special considerations arise, according to attorney Michael Hoenig.

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

September 13, 2010 | Texas Lawyer

What do butter-flavored microwave popcorn, a tire without nylon cap plies, a child restraint system, an asbestos-containing product, the chemical phosphorous pentasulfide and an orthopedic knee implant have in common? On the surface, not much.

By Michael Hoenig

15 minute read

August 10, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herz�feld & Rubin, writes that the advent of a heightened pleading standard, where merely stating labels and legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of a cause of action will not suffice, has disgruntled the plaintiffs' trial bar.

By Michael Hoenig

16 minute read

December 08, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, surveys four recent decisions by New York courts on interesting topics. In Morgenthau, the Court of Appeals clarifies the law regarding service of process abroad. In Devore, the Appellate Division explains choice-of-law principles in a pharmaceutical products liability case brought by Michigan residents. In Butler, the Appellate Division, Second Department changes its earlier position regarding assertion of the "failure to state a cause of action" defense in the answer. And, in Anzelone, the Appellate Division emphasizes that side agreements to conduct post-note of issue discovery are not enforceable.

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

December 13, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes: Weeks ago, Judge Richard A. Posner, writing for a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, dramatically exposed unwholesome class action dynamics in Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. The decision bristles sharply as it deals afresh with "the specific tactics of class counsel, which include...something close to settlement extortion."

By Michael Hoenig

15 minute read

February 27, 2007 | Law.com

A recent 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case, arising from injuries allegedly caused by deployment of an airbag, illustrates a nightmare scenario for plaintiffs counsel. The stinging opinion by Judge Richard A. Posner (pictured) shot down plaintiff's res ipsa loquitur theory, rejected the testimony of plaintiff's putative expert and then slammed both parties for basic errors in establishing federal jurisdiction. In his analysis, Michael Hoenig of Herzfeld & Rubin surveys the damage.

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read