Kristof Fekete v. City of New York, et al.

S.D. New York

Kristof Fekete v. City of New York, et al.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 30, 2025·No. 1:23-cv-04062·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KRISTOF FEKETE, Plaintiff, 23-CV-4062(LAP) -against-

ORDER CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: Plaintiff moves, in limine, to permit Dr. Sebastian Lattuga and Dr. Daniel Giangrasso to testify as expert witnesses at trial. (See dkt. no. 61.) Defendants take no position on the motion, other than opposing the doctors’ testifying beyond the scope of their disclosures made pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(C). (See dkt. no. 72.) Plaintiff in reply, agrees that the doctors should not testify beyond the information contained in their Rule 26(a) disclosures. (See dkt. no. 80.) Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, however, at trial “to the extent a treating physician testifying as an expert intends to comment on matters beyond the scope of his or her patient's treatment, the basis for that testimony must be readily apparent from the [Rule] 26(a)(2)(C) disclosure and summary.” Rodriguez v. Vill. of Port Chester, 535 F. Supp. 3d 202, 215 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). The Clerk of the Court shall close docket number 61. SO ORDERED. 2g LORETTA A. PRESKA Senior United States District Judge

Dated: New York, New York December 30, 2025

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

KRISTOF FEKETE, Plaintiff, 23-CV-4062(LAP) -against-

ORDER CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge: Plaintiff moves, in limine, to permit Dr. Sebastian Lattuga and Dr. Daniel Giangrasso to testify as expert witnesses at trial. (See dkt. no. 61.) Defendants take no position on the motion, other than opposing the doctors’ testifying beyond the scope of their disclosures made pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2)(C). (See dkt. no. 72.) Plaintiff in reply, agrees that the doctors should not testify beyond the information contained in their Rule 26(a) disclosures. (See dkt. no. 80.) Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED, however, at trial “to the extent a treating physician testifying as an expert intends to comment on matters beyond the scope of his or her patient's treatment, the basis for that testimony must be readily apparent from the [Rule] 26(a)(2)(C) disclosure and summary.” Rodriguez v. Vill. of Port Chester, 535 F. Supp. 3d 202, 215 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). The Clerk of the Court shall close docket number 61. SO ORDERED. 2g LORETTA A. PRESKA Senior United States District Judge

Dated: New York, New York December 30, 2025

Kristof Fekete v. City of New York, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Kristof Fekete v. City of New York, et al. (Kristof Fekete v. City of New York, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.