Michael Hoenig

February 09, 2009 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes: In light of the capabilities of video technology and general acceptance by the public, have you ever wondered why real-time, live video transmission of trial testimony is not a mainstay in courtroom proceedings, especially where witnesses are located far away or logistics, inconvenience and expense make a personal appearance in court onerous, if not impossible? Wouldn't it make life in the courtroom easier in numerous scenarios? Obviously, some important factors seem to be impeding a rush towards televised trials. A recent split decision by the Appellate Division, First Department, amply reflects some of the tensions.

By Michael Hoenig

15 minute read

January 26, 2007 | Law.com

Michael Hoenig of Herzfeld & Rubin analyzes the decision last December in Gorran v. Atkins Nutritionals Inc., in which a New York federal judge ruled that the creators and marketers of the low-carb, high-fat Atkins regimen could not be sued by an unsatisfied customer for product liability, negligent misrepresentation and deceptive conduct. The author also looks at an interesting case involving who has the burden of proving the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

By Michael Hoenig

11 minute read

May 16, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes: Often, the actual gleaning is not new but a good reminder nonetheless. Sometimes a new twist on an old theme is presented yielding a double reward: reminding on the old theme; educating on the new twist.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

January 08, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, reports on two recent cases, one where an attempt to structure a claim over allegedly harmful consequences of following the "Atkins Diet" within products liability doctrine posed a big challenge, and another resting on which party has the burden of proving CAFA's jurisdictional requirements, the removing defendant trying to stay in federal court or the plaintiff trying to send the case back to state court.

By Michael Hoenig

11 minute read

August 09, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, analyzes recent rulings that have precluded expert testimony as unreliable. Are lawyers pushing the liability envelope too far? Are experts offering opinions without doing their homework? Are experts for hire too readily finding causal connection between product and injury? Are judges probing more searchingly in executing their gatekeeping task to admit only evidence that is both relevant and reliable?

By Michael Hoenig

16 minute read

December 12, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, suggests that New York and other litigators consider improving their prowess in 2006 (and beyond) by adding two new, outstanding "how to" litigation manuals to their reference arsenals.

By Michael Hoenig

14 minute read

March 08, 2002 | New York Law Journal

I n our February 2000 column, "Suing for Unreliable Expertise," 1 we discussed a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision where the witness` calculation of lost profits was erroneous an error not capable of correction on the witness stand.

By Michael Hoenig

12 minute read

May 19, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By MICHAEL HOENIG

10 minute read

August 14, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that in products liability litigation, the product involved in the accident can be an eloquent "witness," with dents, scratches, or a lack of damage telling trained eyes what happened. But when the examination goes beyond mere observation and entails changing the condition or appearance of the product, special considerations arise. A recent federal district court decision is instructive to counsel when one side seeks to conduct this destructive testing.

By Michael Hoenig by

12 minute read

December 10, 2007 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that those who would place proprietary, private or confidential information on the low end of the totem pole as far as protective relief is concerned are wrong. A company's business, proprietary or confidential interest in its design, testing, financial, research and engineering records, or its warranty or complaint data, for example, is a legitimate basis for seeking nondissemination orders.

By Michael Hoenig

17 minute read