A New York Supreme Court judge has denied a wife's request to call an expert witness in her divorce trial, a decision that could significantly impact the proceedings. The ruling came on March 26, 2026, and affects the ongoing divorce case between S.H. and S.H., which has been in litigation since December 2023. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal proceedings.
The case centers on a divorce initiated by the wife, S.H., against her husband, S.H. The couple has been embroiled in a contentious divorce process that includes allegations of domestic violence. The trial began in January 2026 and has been marked by various motions and procedural challenges. The court's ruling specifically addresses a motion filed by the wife to allow her to call Dr. Andrew Propper, a forensic expert, to testify about the emotional and psychological effects of the alleged domestic violence.
According to court documents, the divorce trial commenced on January 12, 2026, and was scheduled for multiple dates throughout the month. The court had previously set a Pre-Trial Conference Order that required any motions regarding expert witnesses to be filed at least two days before the trial began. However, the wife filed her motion on February 23, 2026, well after the trial had started, which the court deemed untimely.
The court filing, presided over by Justice Catherine M. DiDomenico, outlines the timeline of the divorce proceedings and the specific issues surrounding the motion. The wife sought to introduce Dr. Propper's testimony to support her claims of domestic violence, but the court found that the late filing prejudiced the husband's ability to prepare for trial. The judge noted, "Allowing Dr. Propper to pivot from a neutral witness to a party witness and to switch the focus of his testimony to a new theory mid-trial would be highly prejudicial to Husband."
Justice DiDomenico's ruling highlighted several key points regarding the admissibility of expert testimony and the obligations of parties to disclose expert witnesses in a timely manner. The court emphasized that a party wishing to call an expert witness must provide adequate notice to the opposing party, including the subject matter of the testimony and the qualifications of the expert. In this case, the wife failed to meet these requirements, as her notice was filed on the first day of the trial.
The judge pointed out that Dr. Propper had previously served as a neutral forensic evaluator in the case, appointed by the court to assess custody and parental access issues. The court found that the wife's motion to call him as an expert witness on domestic violence was problematic, as it deviated from his original role and could confuse the issues at hand. The ruling stated, "This Court is generally precluded from reading a forensic report before it is admitted into evidence," indicating that the court could not rely on the expert's previous findings without following proper procedures.
In denying the motion, the court also referenced the potential chilling effect on future cases if parties were allowed to change the status of a neutral expert to a retained witness without proper notice. The judge expressed concern that allowing such a shift would discourage open and honest communication between litigants and forensic evaluators, which is essential in family law cases.
The court ultimately ruled that the wife's motion to call Dr. Propper as an expert witness was denied in its entirety, and his testimony was precluded from the trial. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and the need for both parties to be adequately prepared for trial.
This ruling has significant implications for the ongoing divorce case and highlights the complexities involved in family law matters, especially when allegations of domestic violence are present. The court's emphasis on procedural compliance serves as a reminder that parties must be diligent in their legal obligations to ensure a fair trial.
Moving forward, the denial of the wife's motion means that she will need to rely on other forms of evidence to support her claims in the divorce proceedings. The trial is set to continue, with the next scheduled date on April 27, 2026. The outcome of this case will depend on the remaining evidence presented and the arguments made by both parties.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the court's ruling can potentially be challenged, but it is unclear whether the wife will pursue that option. There are no related cases pending that have been mentioned in the court filing.