Hurrell-Harring v. State

Decision Date03 July 2014
Citation990 N.Y.S.2d 286,119 A.D.3d 1052,2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05010
PartiesKimberly HURRELL–HARRING et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. STATE of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

119 A.D.3d 1052
990 N.Y.S.2d 286
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05010

Kimberly HURRELL–HARRING et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Appellants,
v.
STATE of New York et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

July 3, 2014.


[990 N.Y.S.2d 287]


Schulte, Roth & Zabel, LLP, New York City (Kristie M. Blase of counsel) and New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York City, for appellants.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Victor Paladino of counsel), for respondents.


Before: PETERS, P.J., STEIN, ROSE, EGAN JR. and CLARK, JJ.

PETERS, P.J.

Appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Devine, J.), entered November 12, 2013 in Albany County, which, among other things, granted certain defendants' motion to preclude plaintiffs' experts from testifying at trial, and (2) from that part of an order of said court, entered December 19, 2013 in Albany County, which partially denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration.

This appeal is the latest chapter in a class action lawsuit seeking a declaration that indigent criminal defendants in the five defendant counties are being actually or constructively denied the right to counsel as a result of systemic failures in defendant State of New York's public defense system (112 A.D.3d 1217, 977 N.Y.S.2d 449 [2013],112 A.D.3d 1213, 977 N.Y.S.2d 464 [2013],81 A.D.3d 69, 914 N.Y.S.2d 367 [2011],75 A.D.3d 667, 905 N.Y.S.2d 334 [2010],66 A.D.3d 84, 883 N.Y.S.2d 349 [2009],mod.15 N.Y.3d 8, 904 N.Y.S.2d 296, 930 N.E.2d 217 [2010] ). In response to a demand for expert disclosure, plaintiffs advised defendants that they intended to call Robert Boruchowitz, Norman Lefstein and Robert Spangenberg (hereinafter the experts) as expert witnesses to testify as to the prevailing professional standards governing the provision of legal representation to indigent criminal defendants and whether the structure and operation of the public defense systems in the five counties meets those standards.1 Supreme Court granted the motion by defendant Governor Andrew Cuomo and the State (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants) to preclude such testimony, concluding that the information to be imparted by the experts was not outside the ordinary experience and knowledge of a Supreme Court Justice, as the trier of fact. Upon reconsideration, Supreme Court adhered to its determination concerning the experts. Plaintiffs appeal from both orders.

While the admissibility of expert testimony is a matter left primarily to the discretion of the trial court ( see People v. Williams, 20 N.Y.3d 579, 584, 964 N.Y.S.2d 483, 987 N.E.2d 260 [2013];De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 307, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611, 457 N.E.2d 717 [1983];Brown v. Reinauer Transp. Cos., LLC, 67 A.D.3d 106, 114, 886 N.Y.S.2d 769 [2009],lv. dismissed and denied14 N.Y.3d 823, 900 N.Y.S.2d 239, 926 N.E.2d 594 [2010],cert. denied––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 3088, 180 L.Ed.2d 912 [2011] ), we conclude that, here, Supreme Court should not have precluded the testimony of the experts. “Under familiar rules, expert opinions are admissible on subjects involving professional or scientific knowledge or skill not within the range of ordinary training or intelligence” of the trier of fact (Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 120, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19, 518 N.E.2d 914 [1987] [citations omitted]; see

[990 N.Y.S.2d 288]

People v. Rivers, 18 N.Y.3d 222, 228, 936 N.Y.S.2d 650, 960 N.E.2d 419 [2011];De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d at 307, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611, 457 N.E.2d 717;Hudson v. Lansingburgh Cent. School Dist., 27 A.D.3d 1027, 1028, 812 N.Y.S.2d 678 [2006] ). “[T]his principle applies to testimony regarding both ‘the ultimate questions and those of lesser significance’ ” ( People v. Rivers, 18 N.Y.3d at 228, 936 N.Y.S.2d 650, 960 N.E.2d 419, quoting People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 432–433, 470 N.Y.S.2d 110, 458 N.E.2d 351 [1983];see Dufel v. Green, 84 N.Y.2d 795, 798–799, 622 N.Y.S.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Tucker v. State
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • April 8, 2021
    ...the likelihood of future systemic harm, and that decision further clarified the court's approach. Hurrell-Harring v. State , 119 A.D.3d 1052, 990 N.Y.S.2d 286 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014). In this later appeal, the court considered plaintiffs’ motion to present expert testimony "as to the prevailin......
  • People v. Ramsaran
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • October 12, 2017
    ...228, 936 N.Y.S.2d 650, 960 N.E.2d 419 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Hurrell–Harring v. State of New York, 119 A.D.3d 1052, 1053, 990 N.Y.S.2d 286 [2014] ). The medical examiner explained that the cause of the victim's death could not be determined, although the......
  • Specfin Mgmt. LLC v. Elhadidy
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 24, 2021
    ...N.E.2d 921 [1985] ; see Matter of April WW. [Kimberly WW.], 133 A.D.3d at 1115, 21 N.Y.S.3d 379 ; Hurrell–Harring v. State of New York, 119 A.D.3d 1052, 1053, 990 N.Y.S.2d 286 [2014] ). At trial, plaintiff called Margaret A. Ceconi to address the commercial reasonableness of the collateral ......
  • In re April WW.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 25, 2015
    ...expert[ ] on the [particular matter at issue] ... in light of prevailing professional standards" (Hurrell–Harring v. State of New York, 119 A.D.3d 1052, 1053, 990 N.Y.S.2d 286 [2014] ; see Matter of Nicole V., 123 A.D.2d 97, 108, 510 N.Y.S.2d 567 [1987], affd. 71 N.Y.2d 112, 524 N.Y.S.2d 19......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Expert witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books New York Objections
    • May 3, 2022
    ..., 84 N.Y.2d 795, 622 N.Y.S.2d 900 (1995); De Long v. County of Erie , 60 N.Y.2d 296, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611 (1983); Hurrell-Harring v. State , 119 A.D.3d 1052, 990 N.Y.S.2d 286 (3d Dept. 2014). Jurors typically give great deference to the observations of someone with significant professional qual......
  • Expert witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2019 Contents
    • August 2, 2019
    ..., 84 N.Y.2d 795, 622 N.Y.S.2d 900 (1995); De Long v. County of Erie , 60 N.Y.2d 296, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611 (1983); Hurrell-Harring v. State , 119 A.D.3d 1052, 990 N.Y.S.2d 286 (3d Dept. 2014). Jurors typically give great deference to the observations of someone with signiicant professional quali......
  • Expert witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2021 Contents
    • August 2, 2021
    ..., 84 N.Y.2d 795, 622 N.Y.S.2d 900 (1995); De Long v. County of Erie , 60 N.Y.2d 296, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611 (1983); Hurrell-Harring v. State , 119 A.D.3d 1052, 990 N.Y.S.2d 286 (3d Dept. 2014). Jurors typically give great deference to the observations of someone with signiicant professional quali......
  • Expert witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive New York Objections - 2018 Contents
    • August 2, 2018
    ..., 84 N.Y.2d 795, 622 N.Y.S.2d 900 (1995); De Long v. County of Erie , 60 N.Y.2d 296, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611 (1983); Hurrell-Harring v. State , 119 A.D.3d 1052, 990 N.Y.S.2d 286 (3d Dept. 2014). Lay witnesses are generally conined to giving testimony concerning facts or observations. Giraldez v. C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT