Shah v. Rahman
| Decision Date | 05 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | 2016–04719,Index No. 15370/12 |
| Parties | Syed A. SHAH, Appellant, v. Mo M. RAHMAN, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
167 A.D.3d 671
88 N.Y.S.3d 228
Syed A. SHAH, Appellant,
v.
Mo M. RAHMAN, et al., Respondents.
2016–04719
Index No. 15370/12
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Argued—November 9, 2018
December 5, 2018
Grover & Fensterstock, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Simon B. Landsberg of counsel), for appellant.
Russo & Toner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Cecil E. Floyd and Josh H. Kardisch of counsel), for respondents.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, SANDRA L. SGROI, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mark I. Partnow, J.), dated March 18, 2016. The judgment, upon a jury verdict finding that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102(d) as a result of the subject accident, is in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants to recover damages for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when the vehicle he was driving was struck by a vehicle owned by the defendant Viacheslav Abrashkin and driven by the defendant Mo M. Rahman. Subsequently, the plaintiff was awarded summary judgment on the issue of liability. At a trial on the issue of damages, the plaintiff moved to preclude the defendants' expert, a biomechanical engineer, from testifying or, in the alternative, for a hearing on the admissibility of that expert's testimony pursuant to Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.). The plaintiff argued, in effect, that the expert's testimony was not based on generally accepted principles and methodologies, and that there was not a proper foundation for the admission of the expert's opinion. During oral argument, the defense attorney represented that the Supreme Court Justice recently presided over a trial where the same
expert was permitted to testify regarding biomechanics and causation. The Supreme Court permitted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guerra v. Ditta
...of the proffered testimony" ( People v. LeGrand, 8 N.Y.3d 449, 458, 835 N.Y.S.2d 523, 867 N.E.2d 374 ; see Shah v. Rahman, 167 A.D.3d 671, 673, 88 N.Y.S.3d 228 ). "Absent a novel or experimental scientific theory, a Frye hearing is generally unwarranted" ( People v. Brooks, 31 N.Y.3d 939, 9......
-
Loring v. Fifth Ave. Provisions
...Guerra v. Ditta, 1855 A.D.3d 667 [2d Dept 2020] [Kevin K. Toosi permitted to testify at trial without a Frye hearing]; Shah v. Rahman, 167 A.D.3d 671 [2d Dept 2019] [expert permitted to testify regarding biomechanics causation without first holding hearing to determine admissibility]), the ......
-
Pub. Adm'r of Kings Cnty. v. N.Y. Presbyterian Hospital-N.y. Weill Cornell Ctr., 28930/2001
...scientific or legal writings, judicial opinions, or expert opinions other than that of the proffered expert" ( Shah v. Rahman , 167 AD3d 671, 88 N.Y.S.3d 228 [2 Dept., 2018], quoting Dovberg v. Laubach, 154 AD3d 810, 63 N.Y.S.3d 417 [2 Dept., 2017] )."[G]eneral acceptance does not necessari......