2025 NY Slip Op 50690(U)
N.Y. Fam. Ct., Bronx Cty.2025Background
- ACS filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect by respondent A toward her infant son Y, citing multiple fractures believed to be non-accidental trauma.
- At the time of the petition filing, respondent A was hospitalized with depression.
- Two expert witnesses (Dr. Julie Mack, pediatric radiology; Dr. Christopher Sullivan, pediatric orthopedics) testified for the respondent, disagreeing with ACS’s diagnosis of fractures.
- ACS moved—after all testimony had been heard—to strike portions of these experts’ testimony under Frye v. United States, arguing their opinions lacked general acceptance in the medical community.
- Respondent and Y’s attorney opposed, arguing the motion was untimely and went to the weight, not admissibility, of the evidence.
- The court considered whether the Frye standard and a hearing were warranted at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Respondent’s expert testimony | Testimony lacked generally accepted scientific foundation; should be precluded under Frye | Motion is untimely; goes to weight/credibility; testimony is scientifically accepted | Petitioner's motion is denied; goes to weight, not admissibility |
| Timeliness of Frye motion | Motion is timely as detailed 3101d disclosure was lacking; Frye hearing warranted | Motion is procedurally improper and prejudicial after evidence closed | Motion is untimely and prejudicial |
| Need for Frye hearing for expert opinion | Experts’ opinions based on novel/unsupported methods | Testimony rested on accepted principles and their expertise | No Frye hearing necessary; not novel |
| Waiver of objection to expert testimony | Petitioner argues opportunity only arose after testimony | Petitioner had prior opportunity to object or voir dire | Objection waived by failure to object earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923) (establishes that expert evidence must be based on principles generally accepted in the relevant field)
- People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417 (N.Y. 1994) (affirms Frye’s general acceptance standard in New York)
- People v. Wernick, 89 N.Y.2d 111 (N.Y. 1996) (reiterates requirement of general acceptance for scientific evidence)
- Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp., 7 N.Y.3d 434 (N.Y. 2006) (motions to preclude scientific evidence under Frye should be addressed pre-trial)
- Zelaya v. New York, NY Auto Body Inc., 41 A.D.3d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2007) (objection to expert was waived by not objecting during plaintiff’s case)
- Lipschitz v. Stein, 65 A.D.3d 573 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 2009) (disagreement between medical experts does not necessitate a Frye hearing)