Michael J Hutter

March 30, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter, a professor at Albany Law School and special counsel to Powers & Santola, analyzes developments regarding the 'Noseworthy' doctrine which eztablished a plaintiff in a wrongful death (personal representative of the decedent whose death was caused by defendant) or an amnesiac plaintiff in a personal injury action (amnesia caused by defendant) is ordinarily not held to this usual degree of proof.

By Michael J. Hutter

14 minute read

October 04, 2012 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter, a professor at Albany Law School, discusses whether an inadvertent disclosure as distinct from an intentional and voluntary disclosure effects a waiver of the privilege with respect to the disclosed matter.

By Michael J. Hutter

14 minute read

June 06, 2013 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter, a professor at Albany Law School, discusses two Appellate Division decisions that again raise significant practical concerns as to the nature of the proof necessary to establish the requisite authority to speak, and suggest the time has come to abandon New York's restrictive rule and adopt Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D).

By Michael J. Hutter

14 minute read

February 03, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter, a professor of law at Albany Law School and special counsel to Powers & Santola, discusses the Court of Appeals' 1955 holding that an entry in a patient's medical record regarding the cause of the patient's injury will be admissible only to the extent the entry is germane to the patient's diagnosis or treatment, along with a recent ruling that raises some significant practical concerns as to how a court is to determine whether an entry is in fact germane.

By Michael J. Hutter

13 minute read

December 02, 2010 | New York Law Journal

In his premiere Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter, a professor of law at Albany Law School and special counsel to Powers & Santola, discusses three recent appellate decision which, contrary to the controlling precedent, hold that entries in a party's medical records made upon information provided by the party, which are inconsistent with a position taken by the party at trial, are admissible as an admission of the party even if they are not germane to treatment or diagnosis.

By Michael J. Hutter

13 minute read

October 06, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter, a professor at Albany Law School and special counsel to Powers & Santola, writes that although a murky common law tradition suggests attorney grievance proceedings, Office of Medical Professional Conduct proceedings and the like may not be used as proof of a witness' bad character for truth and veracity, caselaw in recent years have allowed their use.

By Michael J. Hutter

13 minute read

April 11, 2011 | Legaltech News

Clients may believe their e-mail involving legal matters is protected by attorney-client privilege, equating e-mail with mailed letters. But, warns attorney Michael J. Hutter, e-mail poses confidentiality and waiver risks for clients their attorneys must advise them on, as well advising them how to avoid these risks.

By Michael J. Hutter

13 minute read

June 02, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence column, Michael J. Hutter, a professor at Albany Law School and special counsel to Powers & Santola, discusses three recent decisions from the Court of Appeals that clarified New York law by the establishment of an expansive view of the medical statement exception, and, in doing so laid the foundation for its further expansion.

By Michael J. Hutter

12 minute read

April 07, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his Evidence feature, Michael J. Hutter of Powers & Santola looks at ways to avoid confidentiality and waivers risks, and discusses recent decisions involving a technology-challenged couple whose son helped them with e-mails from their lawyer, a wife who gained access to the account her husband used to contact his divorce lawyer, and a woman who communicated with her attorney on an e-mail account that was also freely used by her children.

By Michael J. Hutter

13 minute read

August 04, 2011 | New York Law Journal

In his evidence column, Michael J. Hutter, special counsel to Powers & Santola, writes that considerable discussion has existed through the years among the courts, attorneys and commentators as to whether a prior out-of-court statement of a testifying witness should be classified as hearsay.

By Michael J. Hutter

13 minute read