Michael Hoenig

September 08, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, reviews a recent decision by a California appellate court in a products liability case that stirs up debatable issues regarding admissibility of evidence of a party's marital infidelity. Starkly put, can a claimant's credibility be impeached by evidence, for example, that he was married to two women at the same time or that he had extramarital affairs? Is such evidence forbidden? If not, must the evidence be directly relevant to a material issue in the case? Can it be used to impeach on collateral issues where credibility is very much in play? Does the "prejudice-versus-probative value" calculus play a role? In general, how much of a party's private life is off limits; how much is fair game?

By Michael Hoenig

16 minute read

April 11, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that the United States, because of its sophisticated, nuanced and fair litigation system, is a natural magnet for lawsuits by foreign business interests or injured individuals, but while the U.S. court system seems generous in hosting lawsuits filed by foreign plaintiffs at nominal cost, U.S. taxpayers likely do not want to underwrite the expense of funding courts that resolve disputes properly heard elsewhere.

By Michael Hoenig

14 minute read

March 01, 2006 | Law.com

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

November 09, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, discusses recent decisions dealing with whether sanctions under Rule 37(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be imposed upon the lawyers as well as the errant parties for discovery misconduct, whether a federal judge may consider for summary judgment purposes unverified documents or unsworn reports from an expert if the expert later provides an affidavit verifying his reports, and whether an admission of fact contained in an original pleading can be used at trial if that admission of fact was superseded by an amended pleading not containing the admission.

By Michael Hoenig

14 minute read

June 13, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, surveys four recent decisions issued by New York courts on diverse topics, including discovery disputes and admissibility of expert evidence.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

December 14, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes: How much attorney involvement in the drafting of experts' reports is permissible? Must the entire work product be that of the expert? Or, at the other extreme, would it be acceptable for an attorney to draft the entire expert's report with the expert "adopting" it? And, if at least some lawyer input is tolerable, then what is the boundary line between permission and perdition?

By Michael Hoenig

14 minute read

November 29, 2006 | Law.com

A toxic tort case decided in October by New York's highest court contains lessons for all practitioners who rely on experts whose opinions and methodologies may be questioned on reliability grounds. Michael Hoenig of Herzfeld & Rubin analyzes the court's decision, which involved the reliability of expert opinions and how this issue relates to the traditional Frye test. The case gives bench and bar a number of juicy tidbits to devour, Hoenig says.

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

May 09, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, analyzes the Appellate Division, First Department's decision in Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Co., upholding a ruling which granted a motion to exclude certain expert testimony under the Frye rule.

By Michael Hoenig

14 minute read

April 12, 2010 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that the Internet, computers, blogs and encyclopedic information speedily available to jurors in the digital age may have changed the playing field on post-trial juror interviews even as it has made the effort for jurors to misbehave little more than the touch of a button

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

May 10, 2002 | New York Law Journal

T his column focuses on two recent class action decisions. One, by the Seventh Circuit, was issued on May 2 so it is virtually "hot off the press." It concerns the Ford Explorer and Bridgestone/Firestone Tire multidistrict litigation (MDL) which, for now, is concentrated in a federal court in Indiana. The second opinion of note is the Frank case by the Appellate Division, First Department, issued at the end of March. This litigation involved a claim against auto industry members that their vehicle seats cou

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read