Michael Hoenig

April 11, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, examines recent developments in New York courts on the weight and admissibility of expert testimony.

By Michael Hoenig

15 minute read

April 11, 2003 | New York Law Journal

By MICHAEL HOENIG

9 minute read

August 08, 2005 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, asks: if a claim has been thrown out because an expert botched his assignment or because the expert was found unreliable or untrustworthy in key areas, does that open the expert to being sued for professional malpractice, negligence or breach of contract and, in turn, expose the lawyers who retained said expert to direct suit by frustrated clients or third-party claims by experts who are sued by losing litigants?

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

November 13, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes: Put the New York Court of Appeals' Oct. 17 decision in Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp. on your radar screen. Do not label this as yet another toxic tort case. Like a stealth bomber, it has some potential to evade close scrutiny yet deliver an explosive payload.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

May 12, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes: Do the admissibility rules cited by courts when they accept or reject test evidence make sense today, or do they represent mere relics from a bygone era? Has robust judicial "gatekeeping" of expert testimony for "reliability" under Frye or Daubert admissibility criteria effectively made evidentiary standards such as "sufficient similarity of conditions" or "substantially similar tests" outdated? A new, thoughtful, provocative, well-researched and clearly written article published far away should be required reading for those grappling with test evidence in important cases.

By Michael Hoenig

11 minute read

July 11, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that Supreme Court watchers looking for greater clarity on jurisdiction may have gotten some in two recent holdings, and he reviews a decision that inadequate warnings claims filed against manufacturers of generic drugs were preempted because federal regulations directly conflicted with the state law claims.

By Michael Hoenig

14 minute read

September 13, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his Products Liability column, Michael Hoenig of Herzfeld & Rubin discusses the importance of drafting additional confidentiality agreements in order to minimize risks while permitting full settlement negotiations to go forward.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read

December 12, 2006 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, reviews two recent Second Circuit decisions, one that clarifies the extent to which a district court may consider materials beyond the complaint when a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is made, and another that discusses inconsistent verdicts when a jury, in answer to special interrogatories, says "No" to strict liability and breach of warranty but answers "Yes" to negligence in design and warnings.

By Michael Hoenig

10 minute read

February 11, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that considering the "time warp" Nonnon is caught in, with the First Department's decision published before the Court of Appeals issued Parker and affirmed solely on procedural grounds, Nonnon seems to have potential to influence a line of reasoning that may be in tension with the standard of gatekeeping articulated in Parker.

By Michael Hoenig

18 minute read

July 14, 2008 | New York Law Journal

Michael Hoenig, a member of Herzfeld & Rubin, writes that the the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling likely to fortify the view that, as a matter of common law decision-making and as a matter of constitutional due process, an award of punitive damages should not exceed the amount of the compensatory award. In other words, he explains, a punitive-to-compensatory ratio of 1:1 should thus yield the maximum punitive damages in a given case.

By Michael Hoenig

13 minute read