This column has previously discussed the relationship between expert disclosure and the due process imperative that the party opposing the expert be provided with all relevant information required to prepare a comprehensive and meaningful cross-examination.1 A recent decision from the Appellate Division, First Department, in Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner,2 evinces a present need to revisit the issue.
Harmless Error
In Sonbuchner the trial court permitted the mother to relocate the child from New York to North Carolina over the father’s objection. The plaintiff-father had proceeded to trial pro se. The issue on appeal centered upon the trial court’s restriction of his access to the forensic evaluator’s report which was received in evidence during the evaluator’s direct testimony. The father argued that the trial court improperly prevented him from fully reviewing and analyzing the report in advance of the evaluator’s direct testimony.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
