Personally, Mike, Im on the other side of this issue. Ive cross-examined plaintiffs experts testifying virtually and found little difference (along with the potential argument for Closing: Plaintiffs attorney paid $_____ for his testimony and brought you someone who couldnt even be bothered to show up here in Court). Conversely, Ive had experts who otherwise wouldve been unavailable to testify remain willing to do so as long as they could do it virtually, and weve arranged testimony from as far away as Israel. I used to consider that seeing testimony televised would call attention to the witness and perhaps inflate the jurys opinion of them but, after COVID and the countrys introduction to Zoom and other technologies, I no longer think so.
Just my opinion, but
Carl D. Weinberg | SCHIAVETTI CORGAN DiEDWARDS WEINBERG & NICHOLSON LLP
711 Westchester Avenue, Suite 406 | White Plains, NY 10604 | www.schiavetti.com
Office: 914-946-0400 (ext. 4237) | Mobile: 914-217-8522 | cweinberg@schiavetti.com
[cid:image008.jpg@01DAAA9E.0097BD30]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this transmission and any attachments are intended only for the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information is prohibited. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying or disclosure of this communication and any attachment is strictly prohibited. Please contact the sender immediately by telephone at 914-946-0400 and delete the material from any computer.
From: list
To: list
*** Member’s Message ****
Sender: Maher Michael
Date: 5/19/2024 9:16:18 PM
I have a plaintiff whos asking on the eve of trial to have two of his experts testify via video conference. One is in Buffalo. The other has difficulty getting around due to knee pain.
I have a case that says virtual conferencing is not the equivalent of in-person testimony and should only be considered under exceptional circumstances, a standard that I dont believe the above reasons meet. [Matter of State of New York v. Robert F., 25 NY3d 448 (2015)].
If anyone has seen this more recently and how courts have ruled, any insight or cases would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Mike
Michael Maher
Trial Attorney
[cid:image005.png@01DAAA9D.CBBBA270]
[cid:image006.png@01DAAA9D.CBBBA270]
M.Maher@sbs-law.com
[cid:image012.png@01DAAA9E.0097BD30] (516) 277-4463
[cid:image011.png@01DAAA9D.CBBBA270] 1800 Northern Boulevard, Roslyn, NY 11576
[cid:image013.png@01DAAA9E.0097BD30] www.sbs-law.com
________________________________
THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL, OR THAT CONSTITUTES WORK PRODUCT AND IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THE COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE (516) 775-2236 AND DESTROY THE DOCUMENT. THANK YOU. LAW OFFICES OF BENVENUTO & GAUJEAN.
________________________________