Two Harris Beach Murtha attorneys were recently highlighted in a New York Law Journal article covering the latest installment of a popular, annual continuing legal education program entitled “The Business, Commercial, and White-Collar Decisions of the New York State Court of Appeals.”
Entitled “Panel of Appellate Heavyweights Review NY Top Court’s Major Cases,” the article spotlighted a panel discussion that featured Brian D. Ginsberg as moderator and Lisa A. LeCours as a panelist. Brian leads the firm’s Appellate Practice Group and Lisa is a member of that group.
Lisa, the Court of Appeals’ former chief clerk and legal counsel, dissected Richard Hobish v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance, a four-judge majority opinion in January 2025 by Judge Shirley Troutman addressing claims for breach of contract and violations of General Business Law §349 in relation to a high value life insurance contract, including the availability of punitive damages with respect to those claims; and Yi v New York State Board for Professional Medical Conduct, a challenge to revocation of a radiation oncologist’s license. The litigation centered on the board’s reliance on testimony from an expert who, among other evidence, relied on clinical practice guidelines that were never admitted into evidence, a situation that implicated when a court may properly take judicial notice of non-record materials.
The court rejected the physician’s arguments, Lisa said, and key principles emerging from the case were that, although clinical practice guidelines are insufficient to establish the standard of care, they may be considered by an expert with experience in the field in forming an opinion as to whether the standard was breached, along with the ability of expert witnesses to rely on and testify concerning materials not in the record.
Lisa opined that she “loves it when the top court rolls up its sleeves on evidentiary” and procedural topics such as these.
“I just think it’s incredibly helpful to provide that kind of really practical, useful material for practitioners,” she said, while stating the top court’s review in both cases presented thought-provoking issues concerning the “fine line between independent research to explore the bona fides of an argument made by the parties, and a court overstepping into the realm of advocacy by significantly altering or expanding upon the arguments of the parties.”
Read the full article to see what she said about Hobish and what other panelists, guided by Brian, discussed at the event. (Subscription may be required)
