New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

In New York, when is a Frye Hearing appropriate?

1. When the expert’s opinion relies on standard scientific testing.

2. When an expert intends to give an opinion related to civil actions.

3. When the expert’s methodology is new or novel.

4. When an expert provides testimony that contradicts prior testimony.

The correct answer is: When the expert’s methodology is new or novel.

In New York, a Frye Hearing is conducted to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. This hearing is specifically appropriate when the expert’s methodology is new or novel, as it assesses whether the scientific principles or methods used by the expert have gained general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. The Frye standard, originating from the case *Frye v. United States*, requires that the evidence must not only be relevant but also rooted in scientific principles widely recognized and accepted by experts in the field. When an expert's methodology is new or has not yet been widely established or accepted in the scientific community, it raises concerns about its reliability and validity. Thus, a Frye Hearing allows the court to evaluate the soundness of the expert’s methodology before the evidence is presented to the jury. In contrast, expert opinions based on standard scientific testing, those related to civil actions, and testimony that contradicts prior testimony do not specifically necessitate a Frye Hearing. Standard scientific testing typically involves well-established methodologies that have already passed scrutiny, while civil actions do not inherently raise questions about scientific validity, and contradictions in testimony deal more with credibility than the admissibility of scientific evidence.