Posted by A. Brucker on 10/25/06

More | Report Post

Just for the record, I was the attorney in the NYT
article. At the time, there was no reported Frye hearing
on mold. In fact, in a New York Law Journal article in
2005, two attorneys from Strook (who probably prepresent
more coops in NYC than any other firm, though you
shouldn't quote me.....its only my speculation) even
agreed and stated the same thing.

The 2001 Frye hearing was not published, so no one except
those involved, knew anything about it.

Further, it should be noted that the decision in THAT Frye
hearing dealt only with mold and neurogical injury (unlike
the recent Fraser case) and the judge said there was not
good science yet linking mold to this sort of injury.

Thus, no matter how you slice it, there are two Frye
hearings in New York, both holding that the theory that
mold causes problems is not science yet, only speculation.

These are hearing only involving current science and
research. It is not to say that in the future, some
causal link may be found. It is also not to say that a
harmless mold may not cause an allergic reaction in
someone. I can eat an apple, yet my wife is allergic to
apples. That doesn't mean that apples are toxic.

Finally, I would ask that the rules of this chatboard be
respected. This chatboard is for attorney to attorney
communications. It is not for Sharon or anyone else to
spread their agenda.

Frye Hearing, 10/25/06, by A. Brucker.

Attorney Chatboard

LATEST POSTS | BY TOPICS | SUBMIT A POST