Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Decisions of Interest
Daubert Standard Applied to Review Use of Psychological Tests in Custody Dispute
The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, determined that when proffered expert testimony that is based on psychological tests is challenged as unreliable, the proper test for judging that testimony's reliability is found in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and its progeny, rather than in the more rigid standard set forth in Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923. S.M. v. G.M.. NYLJ 4/5/05, DOI; Pg. 20 (motion sequence number 008) (Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.).
In this child custody matter, the plaintiff moved for an order determining that the report and testimony of forensic psychologist Dr. Jennifer Flynn-Campbell was inadmissible because it was based on psychological tests that did not meet the standards for reliability for expert testimony set forth in Daubert, Frye and/or People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y. 2d417 (1994). In the alternative, the plaintiff asked the court to conduct a hearing to consider the admissibility of this expert testimony pursuant to tests as set forth in those cases. The defendant opposed the motion on the grounds that the plaintiff consented to the appointment of the neutral expert, whom counsel knew employed the very techniques plaintiff was attacking, that the report contained very little mention of the psychological testing that plaintiff opposed, and that the use of psychological testing as a component of a forensic evaluation in custody cases has been specifically recommended by experts in the field, including one cited in the Handbook issued by the Appellate Divisions for the First and Second Departments. He asserted, therefore, that the use of psychological testing by forensic psychologists in custody investigations met the standards set forth in Daubert, Frye and/or Wesley.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?