Reynoso v. Levine
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-00151
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Reynoso v. Levine, Judge Schofield ruled on trial-evidence motions, allowing some evidence, excluding other evidence, and postponing the trial.
The order affected Plaintiff Elba Reynoso and Defendants Barry Levine et al. by determining what evidence could be presented at trial, permitting limited additional discovery about outstanding medical bills, and moving the scheduled jury trial date.
What happened
In Elba Reynoso v. Barry Levine et al., the parties asked the court to decide what evidence could be presented at the upcoming jury trial concerning the accident and Reynoso’s claimed damages.
The court allowed some evidence and excluded other evidence. It barred Officer Christopher McDermott from testifying about how the accident happened, but allowed him to testify about admissible statements in the police report and his observations at the scene. The court excluded the police report’s diagram but allowed the rest of the report. It also limited evidence about Levine’s traffic guilty plea, future medical treatment, medical bills, liens, future lost earnings, and Reynoso’s immigration status as described in the order.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the motions challenging life-care expert Harold Bialsky’s testimony, the medical-bill evidence, and future-lost-earnings evidence, while denying Reynoso’s motion concerning immigration-status evidence. The court also required limited additional discovery about outstanding medical bills and adjourned the jury trial from September 27 to October 18, 2021.
The detailed version
- Reynoso v. Levine · No. 1:19-cv-00151
- Lorna Schofield
- July 27, 2021
Background
The parties filed motions asking the court to limit evidence before trial. The motions concerned testimony about the accident, the police report, Defendant Barry Levine’s guilty plea to a traffic violation, Plaintiff Elba Reynoso’s damages evidence, and evidence concerning Reynoso’s immigration status.
Rulings on the Motions
Officer McDermott’s testimony
The court granted Defendants’ motion to preclude New York City Police Officer Christopher McDermott from testifying about how the accident occurred. The court stated that McDermott could testify about admissible statements in the police report and his observations when he arrived at the scene.
Police report
The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to preclude the police report. The diagram attached to the report was excluded as prejudicial. The remainder of the report was admissible for the reasons argued by Plaintiff.
Levine’s guilty plea and traffic ticket
The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to preclude evidence of Levine’s guilty plea and the traffic ticket. The details of the charge on the ticket were precluded as prejudicial. The plea and the description of the rule on the ticket were admissible. Levine could explain why he pleaded guilty instead of contesting the charge.
Life-care expert
The court denied Defendants’ motion to preclude testimony from Plaintiff’s life-care expert, Harold Bialsky. Bialsky could testify about the potential costs of future medical treatment. Plaintiff still had to persuade the jury that the need for the surgery, treatment, and procedures described in Bialsky’s report was not speculative.
Outstanding medical bills and liens
The court denied Defendants’ motion to preclude evidence or testimony about outstanding medical bills or liens as special damages based on a late disclosure. Defendants could conduct additional discovery limited to that issue if necessary. The order’s concluding list identifies this as the motion concerning the “second supplemental disclosure.”
Future lost earnings
The court denied Defendants’ motion to preclude evidence about future lost earnings. Any such evidence had to be consistent with Plaintiff’s evidence about her ability to work. Evidence assuming that Plaintiff was totally unable to work was precluded.
Immigration status
The court denied Plaintiff’s motion to preclude evidence or argument about her immigration status. That evidence or argument was admissible solely on the issue of future lost earnings, for the reasons argued by Defendants.
Additional Orders
The parties were ordered to complete discovery concerning Plaintiff’s outstanding medical bills by August 27, 2021. The jury trial scheduled for September 27, 2021, was adjourned to October 18, 2021, subject to the need for and availability of suitable courtrooms. The final pretrial conference would be set closer to the trial date. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.