Case Name: Frank P. Lant, Resp't, v. Antonio Rasines et al., Impleaded, etc., App'lts
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896-06-02
Citations: 74 N.Y. St. Rep. 855
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frank P. Lant, Resp't, v. Antonio Rasines et al., Impleaded, etc., App'lts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 74
Pages: 855–856

Head Matter:
Frank P. Lant, Resp't, v. Antonio Rasines et al., Impleaded, etc., App'lts.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Dept.,
Filed June 2, 1896.)
1. Witness—Expert.
An expert witness should be confined to questions which contain in themselves the facts assumed to be proved upon which his opinion is desired.
S. Same.
There is an exception to the rule where the testimony of a single witness is called to the attention of the expert and he is aslced a question based upon the testimony of that witness.
3. Same.
An expert witness cannot state, after testifying that he had heard most of the testimony, that he could give an estimate of what plaintiff’s services were reasonably worth.
Appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff.
Mark Ash, for app’lts; Geo. W. Sandford, for respt.

Opinion:
DALY, P. J.
The rule with respect to questions put to expert witnesses on the subject of value is, as stated by Judge Gray in Link v. Sheldon, 136 N. Y. 1; 32 N. E. 696: "An expert witness should he confined to questions which contain in themselves the facts assumed to he proven upon which his opinion is desired." There is an exception to the rule, and that is where the testimony of a single witness is called to the attention of the expert, and he is asked a. question based upon the testimony of that witness. It is there the same as if the testimony had been read over to. him and embodied in the question. That was the case of McCollum v. Seward, 62 N. Y. 316, where the expert was asked, "What were his services as he, the plaintiff, described them worth?" and the case of Seymour v. Fellows, 77 N. Y. 178, when the query was, "What, in your opinion, was the value of the services which Mr. Seymour stated he rendered?" and the ease of Miller v. Richardson, 88 Hun, 49; 69 St. Rep. 290, where the court said: "There was no error.in the reception of the evidence offered to prove the value of services performed by plaintiff, as described by the testimony of another witness."
This ease is not within the exception to the rule. The plaintiff having given testimony which covers a large number of folios, an expert is called and asked this question: "Q. Have you heard all the testimony in this suit? A. Most of it." And is then asked: "Q. Can you answer my question now, and, give, as an estimate, from what you have heard of the testimony, what these services were reasonably worth ?" The jury could not possibly know what was in the witness' mind. He did not say: "I have heard the testimony of the plaintiff, and, from what he stated, his services-were worth so much." He only professed to speak from what he had heard of the testimony, and we do not know whether that excluded the more important parts of it or not. . It is impossible to-sustain that question without extending the ¡exception to the rule-further than the court of appeals or the supreme court has beam willing to go, and perhaps without destroying the rule.
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant of appeal in this court and the court he-low, and of the former trial to abide event.
All concur.