Follow us!

    Post: Frye Hearing

    Posted by A. Brucker on 10/25/06

    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.

    Posts on this thread, including this one
  • Frye Hearing, 10/25/06, by A. Brucker.

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.