Practice point: The Appellate Division found that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying plaintiffs' request for a Frye hearing to determine the admissibility of the
anticipated testimony of a biomechanical engineer. His lack of medical training did not render him unqualified to
render an expert opinion that the force of the motor
vehicle accident could not have caused the alleged injuries. In light of his education, background,
experience, and areas of specialty, he was able him to testify as
to the mechanics of injury.
Student note: Plaintiffs' challenge to the expert's qualifications and the fact
that his opinion conflicted with that of defendant's orthopedic expert
go to the weight of the testimony and not its admissibility.
Case: Vargas v. Sabri, NY Slip Op 01666 (1st Dept. 2014).
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Dismissal of a complaint as abandoned.
