Rena Brenman and Mitchell D. Brenman, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. Michael Demello and Stephanie Demello…

Summary

The Supreme Court held that expert testimony is not a condition precedent to the admission of photographs of vehicle damage when the cause or extent of a plaintiff's injuries is at issue, affirming the trial court's discretion to admit such photographs. The Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court's judgment. Justice Wallace dissented, arguing the photographs should have been excluded without expert proof, and Justice Albin concurred, emphasizing that lay testimony and photographs are admissible but rejecting a 'certainty of proportion' rule.