Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW
Beginning in June, Thomson Reuters News & Insight content will be available exclusively on WestlawNext®, as part of its Practitioner Insights offering. On June 21, the Thomson Reuters News & Insight website, iPhone® app and newsletters will be discontinued. See Frequently Asked Questions to learn more.

Legal

  •  
  •  

Money. REUTERS Rick Wilking

Testimony of witness paid $10,000 admissible: N.Y. Court of Appeals

2/7/2013 COMMENTS (0)

By Daniel Wiessner

ALBANY, N.Y., Feb 7 (Reuters) - The New York State Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the testimony of a doctor paid $10,000 to testify for one hour in a personal injury case was admissible but said the trial court should have warned the jury of his potential bias.

The court on Thursday said it was "troubled" by the payment to the doctor, who was subpoenaed by the defense to testify in a case brought by Bessie Caldwell against Communications Specialists and Cablevision.

The payment, however, did not run afoul of a state law regarding witness compensation, the court said.

Section 8001 of the state Civil Practice Laws and Rules requires that a witness who is compelled to testify be paid a minimum of $15 per day, as well as 23 cents per mile traveled.

The law does not cap witness compensation.

"Such payments, when exorbitant as compared to the amount of time the witness spends away from work or business, create an unflattering intimation that the testimony is being bought or, at the very least, has been unconsciously influenced by the compensation provided," Judge Eugene Pigott wrote for the court.

Pigott faulted the trial judge for failing to instruct the jury on the doctor's potential bias but said the error was harmless because Caldwell had not alleged that the doctor's testimony was fabricated.

According to the court, Communications Specialists in 2006 contracted with Cablevision to install a fiber-optic cable in the Westchester County city of Peekskill. Communications Specialists dug trenches along a road that were filled with dirt but not completely finished.

TRENCH ACCIDENT

Caldwell claimed that one night in 2006, while walking her dog, she tripped and fell into one of the trenches.

In 2009, she sued Cablevision and Communications Specialists, claiming they had negligently created a hazardous condition by failing to pave the trenches.

The doctor who examined Caldwell shortly after her fall wrote in a medical report that she "tripped over a dog while walking last night in the rain," the court said. Communications Specialists subpoenaed the doctor to testify on its behalf.

During cross-examination by Caldwell's attorney, the doctor testified that he had been paid $10,000 by Communications Specialists to appear but denied that the payment influenced his testimony, the Court of Appeals said.

Caldwell moved to strike the testimony. As an alternative, her attorney asked Westchester County Supreme Court Justice Richard Liebowitz to instruct the jury on potential bias arising from the payment. Liebowitz denied the motions, instead suggesting that Caldwell raise the issue during summation.

The jury in 2009 found Communications Specialists negligent but concluded that its negligence was not a factor in Caldwell's accident. It was not immediately clear what the jury ruled with respect to Cablevision.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, in 2011 affirmed, finding that Liebowitz erred in declining to fashion a jury instruction on potential bias but that the error was harmless.

The Court of Appeals on Thursday agreed.

Pigott was joined by Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judges Victoria Graffeo, Susan Read and Robert Smith.

Caldwell's attorney, Fred Profeta, said on Thursday that the decision is important because it provides guidance with respect to witness pay, but he disagreed with the court that the judge's failure to instruct the jury in his case was harmless.

"The jury asked about the doctor's testimony a couple of times; he was a persuasive witness, and clearly they were focused on him," Profeta said.

Communications Specialists' attorney, Christopher Simone, did not immediately return a request for comment.

The case is Bessie Caldwell v. Cablevision Systems Corporation, New York State Court of Appeals, No. 19.

For Caldwell: Fred Profeta.

For Communications Specialists, Inc.: Christopher Simone of Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt.

Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters