Michael J Hutter

July 31, 2019 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter discusses 'People v. Smith', writing that the decision—including both the opinion of the Court of Appeals and the dissenting opinion of Justices Carni and Lindley—is required reading for a trial lawyer, as it complements the missing witness charge as provided in NY PJI3d and CJ2d.

By Michael J. Hutter

13 minute read

June 05, 2019 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence column, Michael Hutter discusses 'Markel v. Pure Power Boot Camp,' a decision significant “because it addressed and resolved an issue of discoverability which had not been uniformly analyzed and decided by the trial courts.

By Michael J. Hutter

12 minute read

April 03, 2019 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter discusses the background, outcome and takeaways from the Third Department decision in 'Wrubleski v. Mary Imogene Basset Hosp.', in which the Appellate Division addressed the legal/non-legal distinction of client communications in the context of determining whether a client's written notes made post-accident setting forth her account of how she was injured, the medical treatment she received for her injuries, and the medications she took during her post-operative care, could be viewed as a privileged confidential communication.

By Michael J. Hutter

12 minute read

February 06, 2019 | New York Law Journal

Evidence columnist Michael J. Hutter discusses two statutory provisions enacted by the Legislature in 2018 which address the authentication process concerning a certain type and category of offered evidence with the express intent to make the process easier as to that evidence.

By Michael J. Hutter

12 minute read

December 05, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Evidence columnist Michael J. Hutter explores New York's rules governing the questioning, including impeachment, of adverse parties and hostile witnesses on a party's direct case.

By Michael J. Hutter

11 minute read

October 03, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter writes: Assuming that an expert's opinion is admissible, even though it is based upon inadmissible evidence, another issue is present. May the reliable but out-of-court and inadmissible statement or document upon which the opinion is based also be admitted? Expressed differently, does the inadmissible evidence become admissible because of its use as a basis for an expert's opinion?

By Michael J. Hutter

11 minute read

August 01, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter discusses whether out-of-court material may be the sole or principal basis for an expert's opinion.

By Michael J. Hutter

2 minute read

June 06, 2018 | New York Law Journal

In People v. Cummings, 2018 NY Slip Op. 03306 (May 8, 2018), the Court of Appeals addressed New York's long recognized excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule.

By Michael J. Hutter 

1 minute read

April 04, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Evidence columnist Michael J. Hutter writes: In today's increasingly complex legal environment, attorneys may need the assistance of professionals, e.g., scientists, engineers, physicians, accountants, investment bankers and even, public relations specialists to effectively and competently advise their clients. Working with these professionals will often require the disclosure to them of attorney-client privileged information. Does such disclosure result in the loss of privilege protection?

By Michael J. Hutter

11 minute read

January 30, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Evidence columnist Michael J. Hutter presents an evidence quiz. Take a break and see if you know evidence as well as the judges before whom you will be appearing.

By Michael J. Hutter

12 minute read