DeLuca v. Ding Ju Liu
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Contrary to the respondent’s contention, the appellants’ argument that the Supreme Court erroneously allowed her chiropractic expert to testify about her magnetic resonance imaging (hereinafter MRI) and electromyography (hereinafter EMG) reports was properly preserved for appellate review (see CPLR 5501). It is well settled that “opinion evidence must be based on facts in the record or personally known to the witness” (Hambsch v New York Ciíy Tr. Auth., 63 NY2d 723, 725 [internal quotation marks omitted]). To be admissible, “opinion evidence must be based on one of the following: first,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hambsch v. New York City Transit AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Wagman v. BradshawAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Flamio v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
- Serra v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
- See Chang Chiu v. GarciaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Elshaarawy v. U-Haul Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Cappolla v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Jemmott v. LazofskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
- Astrel v. YarboroughAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- D'Andraia v. PesceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.