Permits the admissibility into evidence of statements in learned treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets if the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness and the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert's admission or testimony, by another expert's testimony, or by judicial notice.
Summary
A06983 would add a new section to New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules governing when statements from learned treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets may be used as evidence in court. Under the bill, such a statement could be admitted if it is brought to the attention of an expert witness on cross-examination or relied upon by the expert on direct examination, and if the publication is shown to be a reliable authority through the expert’s admission, another expert’s testimony, or judicial notice.
If admitted, the statement could be read into evidence but would not itself be received as a physical exhibit. The bill takes effect immediately and is aimed at clarifying and expanding the evidentiary use of authoritative professional publications in cases involving expert testimony, especially in civil litigation where technical or specialized knowledge is at issue.
Impact
The bill would amend New York’s evidence rules by creating a specific statutory basis for admitting statements from authoritative medical, scientific, or professional publications in expert-driven cases. It would affect the Civil Practice Law and Rules, particularly the rules governing expert testimony and hearsay-like use of learned writings, and would likely influence litigants, experts, judges, and trial practice by making it easier to use recognized publications to challenge or support expert opinions.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests the bill has been received favorably, at least in committee, with the Assembly Judiciary Committee voting 20-0 to refer it favorably to Rules. There is no recorded opposition in the provided materials, and the bill’s framing suggests a procedural evidentiary reform rather than a controversial policy change. Overall, the sentiment appears supportive and technical in nature.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the scope of admissibility for out-of-court statements in learned publications, since expanding their use could be seen as strengthening cross-examination and expert impeachment while also raising concerns about reliability, selective quotation, and jury confusion. Another possible issue is the threshold for establishing a publication as a “reliable authority,” which may lead to disputes over who qualifies as an expert and how much deference courts should give to judicial notice versus competing expert testimony. No specific opposition is reflected in the provided committee vote or transcripts.
Same As
Permits the admissibility into evidence of statements in learned treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets if the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness and the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert's admission or testimony, by another expert's testimony, or by judicial notice.
Permits the admissibility into evidence of statements in learned treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets if the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness and the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert's admission or testimony, by another expert's testimony, or by judicial notice.
Permits the admissibility into evidence of statements in learned treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets if the statement is called to the attention of an expert witness and the publication is established as a reliable authority by the expert's admission or testimony, by another expert's testimony, or by judicial notice.
Modifies provisions relating to court procedure, including the admissibility of expert testimony evidence and Supreme Court Rule 52.08 relating to class actions