Motions In Limine: Where Party Had Declined To Disclose Consultation With Counsel, Trial Testimony Precluded; Motions To Exclude Expert Witnesses Denied

Posted: June 29, 2026 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Preclusion, Experts

Motions In Limine: Where Party Had Declined To Disclose Consultation With Counsel, Trial Testimony Precluded; Motions To Exclude Expert Witnesses Denied

On April 27, 2026, Justice Melissa A. Crane of the New York County Commercial Division decided a series of pre-trial motions in limine that had been argued on March 11, 2026. The case is Life Insurance Fund Elite, LLC v. Hamburg Commercial Bank AG, Index No. 153100/2023.

Among other rulings, Justice Crane granted a motion to preclude defendant (“HCOB”) from offering evidence that it had received legal advice concerning the matter in suit, where it had declined to share the substance of the advice:

HCOB’s attempt is a typical sword/shield situation. HCOB cannot interpose its reliance on counsel and then refuse to say what that advice was. HCOB would unfairly keep from the fact finder whether: (1) the legal advice was sub par; or (2) whether HCOB even followed that advice. Without the substance of the advice, the mere existence of that advice has minimal to no relevance and is unduly prejudicial, without the advice itself.

Slip op., p. 2.

She denied a motion to exclude defendants’ expert, Mr. Zass, that was based on defendants’ failure to produce workpapers:

[Plaintiffs] should have sought the workpapers behind Zass’ expert report earlier in the case. The court should not first hear about the need for additional discovery, or the need for a Frye hearing for that matter, at the motion in limine phase. Plaintiff is free to poke holes in Zass’ testimony, including a lack of basis for his report, on cross examination. Defendants will not be allowed to introduce at trial anything [they have] not already produced.

The Court also rejected motions to exclude the testimony of two expert witnesses where objections to their testimony went to weight, not admissibility. Id., p. 4.

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning preclusion, expert witnesses, or pre-trial motions.