Selected Cases Relating to Experts
Experts -- their opinion can be
disregarded, but reasons should be explained and supported by the record:
“Moreover, the Family Court was not required
to follow the recommendations of the forensic examiner and the Law Guardian (see
Berstell v Krasa-Berstell, 272 A.D.2d 566
[2000]; Matter of
Forensic evaluations -- request
for second evaluation denied. “There was
an insufficient showing made before the Family Court to justify a second
forensic examination of the parties and their children. The mother's contention
that the court- appointed [276/77] expert was
biased is unsupported by the record. Further, the mother failed to provide medical
evidence that a second evaluation would not jeopardize the best interests
of the children (see Becker
v Becker, 143
A.D.2d 561 [1st
Experts -- extent of reliance by
court:
“[T]he Supreme Court's reliance on
the recommendation of a forensic evaluator was proper, as the evaluator's
testimony and reports were reflective of the extensive amount of time and
effort she expended with the parties and as well as in reviewing prior reports.
Her recommendation, as well as the remainder of the evidence adduced at the
full custody hearing, demonstrated that custody with the father was in the
child's best interests.” Nicholson v.
Nicholson, 4 A.D.3d 347, 347 (2d
Experts -- improper delegation of
authority by court:
Order stating that visitation
would be “as directed by child’s treating physician” improperly divested power
from court. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez,
305 A.D.2d 608 (2d
Psychologist’s report denied
admissibility due to hearsay, etc.:
”Family Court also erred by admitting the psychologist's report into evidence.
Two psychologists worked together to create the report, yet only one testified.
The testifying psychologist was not the one who interviewed other family
members, whose comments were included in the report. Additionally, the report
not only included the polygraph examiner's official results, but also his
informal opinion as to the father's truthfulness regarding certain topics.
Because the report relied on hearsay statements from individuals who had no
business obligation to provide information to the psychologist, it was inadmissible
as a business record (see Matter
of Shane MM. v Family & Children Servs., 280 A.D.2d 699, 701 [2001]). With that
report excluded, the psychologist's opinion is not entitled to great weight
because it was based in part on facts not in evidence and the inadmissible
polygraph results, and the psychologist incorrectly stated that he had
conducted certain psychological tests which the nontestifying
psychologist had conducted.” In re Lauren B., -- A.D.3d -- (3d Dep’t
Last updated