RUBEN GONZALEZ, plf-res, v. JESUS H. PALEN AND MANUEL DIPLAN, def-app

15-143. RUBEN GONZALEZ, plf-res, v. JESUS H. PALEN AND MANUEL DIPLAN, def-app — Judgment (Jose A. Padilla, J.), entered on or about September 30, 2013, reversed, without costs, and matter remanded for a new trial on damages.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

15-143. RUBEN GONZALEZ, plf-res, v. JESUS H. PALEN AND MANUEL DIPLAN, def-app — Judgment (Jose A. Padilla, J.), entered on or about September 30, 2013, reversed, without costs, and matter remanded for a new trial on damages.

The trial court erred in determining that defendants’ biomechanical engineer, Dr. Kevin Toosi, was not qualified to render an opinion as an expert as to the cause of plaintiff’s injuries. Even assuming that an evidentiary hearing was warranted to assess Toosi’s professional qualification (see Frye v. United States, 293 F 1013 [DC Cir 1923]), the evidence presented at the Frye hearing established that Toosi had the academic and professional qualifications — including a PhD in biomechanical engineering, a license to practice medicine in Iran, and three years’ experience in accident reconstruction, which included the study of the effects of force on occupants inside a vehicle — to render an opinion as an expert on the issue of whether the force generated in the subject motor vehicle accident was sufficient to cause the injuries alleged by plaintiff (see Vargas v. Sabri, 115 AD3d 505 [2014]). Toosi’s lack of a license to practice medicine in the United States did not render him unqualified (id.). To the contrary, Toosi’s stated education, background, experience and areas of specialty rendered him able to testify as to the mechanic’s of the injury (id.; Plate v. Palisade Film Delivery Corp., 39 AD3d 835 [2007]).

RUBEN GONZALEZ, plf-res, v. JESUS H. PALEN AND MANUEL DIPLAN, def-app

15-143. RUBEN GONZALEZ, plf-res, v. JESUS H. PALEN AND MANUEL DIPLAN, def-app — Judgment (Jose A. Padilla, J.), entered on or about September 30, 2013, reversed, without costs, and matter remanded for a new trial on damages.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal