The Appellate Division has upheld a defense verdict in a legal malpractice suit stemming from the purchase of land containing wetlands.

The appeals court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial after finding that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion when she allowed a defense expert to testify in spite of the plaintiffs’ objections. The appeals court said the trial judge correctly ruled that the defense expert could testify despite a lack of directly comparable work experience and testimony that was not tethered to case law or a legal treatise.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

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]