Whenever an expert testifies, one of the salient issues that must be examined is whether the witness has a sound and proper basis for the proffered conclusions. Full exploration of the expert’s basis requires at least two levels of analysis, encompassing both the major and the minor premises underlying the opinion. A recent decision from the Appellate Division, First Department, in Strauss v. Strauss,1 implicates both levels of analysis in the context of a forensic custody report. This article will explore the ramifications of the decision.
The Decision
In Strauss, the plaintiff moved to exclude a forensic report. The basis for the motion was that the report failed to cite any “specific professional literature in support of the report’s analyses and opinions.” The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion, stating:
