Historically, in a typical personal injury trial, the central questions seemed straightforward. What happened and who is responsible? In recent times, however, those questions are being overshadowed by concerns over whether the claim itself can be trusted. In courtrooms across New York, allegations of fraud are becoming more prevalent and shaping affirmative defenses, investigations, discovery, and the way matters are ultimately tried before juries.
The evolution in trial defense strategy is not the result of a single doctrinal change. Rather, it reflects a growing awareness by the courts and practitioners of patterns that demonstrate coordination among plaintiffs, medical providers, attorneys, and often, litigation funders. As courts confront these realities, fraud has moved from the ever present margins of civil litigation to a central force influencing trial structure, evidentiary decisions, and jury perception.
From Isolated Claims to Systematic Suspicion
New York courts require that fraud be pled with specificity. N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3016(b). In practice, however, defendants are increasingly advancing fraud-based theories and presenting related narratives even where fraud is not formally asserted as an affirmative defense. The result is a meaningful shift in how cases are framed and tried. Matters that should focus primarily on negligence and causation often turn on credibility and legitimacy. This is consistent with the broader principle that the scope of litigation is never limited to the pleadings and/or the outcome of discovery alone. At trial, credibility is always a central focus for the defense.
Expanded Discovery and the Search for Networks
The most visible impact of this shift is in discovery. Where indicia of suspicious coordinated conduct exist, defendants are more aggressively seeking information beyond the immediate facts of the incident followed by treatment. Discovery is now geared towards uncovering the relationships among counsel, medical providers, and funding sources.
In Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages, LLC, 243 A.D.3d 504 (1st Dept. 2025), the Appellate Division, First Department, endorsed a broader view of discovery where the record suggested the possibility of a larger fraudulent scheme. The court permitted inquiry into relationships among parties (plaintiffs) and non-parties (litigation funders), recognizing that such information could bear on the legitimacy of the claims at issue because it "could reveal a financial motive for fabricating the accident." Id at 505, citations omitted.
The implications are significant. Discovery that once focused on incident reports and medical records now may extend to financial arrangements, referral sources, and patterns of prior litigation. This trend increases both cost and complexity while placing greater demands on judicial oversight. Although the courts have the responsibility of managing discovery to preclude overly intrusive or speculative inquiries (i.e. fishing expeditions), judges must balance that with the competing goal of global fairness in the judicial process which is served by exposing potentially fraudulent conduct.
Trial Strategy Centered on Credibility
As discovery broadens, trial strategy adapts and evolves accordingly. Typically, the question of liability revolves around whether a defendant bears any responsibility and plaintiff bears the burden of proof on this topic. However, it is becoming ever more apparent that defense counsel has the increased burden of critically examining the reliability of plaintiff's account of the underlying incident.
This approach of focusing on credibility begins in voir dire, where attorneys explore jurors' views on such critical concepts as lawsuits, medical treatment, and perceived abuses of the legal system. It continues through cross-examination, which often seeks to reveal patterns or inconsistencies that call credibility into question. The narrative frequently centers on whether the claim can be trusted.
This strategy can be effective when supported by evidence but it also invites risks. If fraud themes are advanced without a solid factual foundation, jurors may perceive the argument as overreach and reject it to the defendant's great detriment. The most effective defenses are those that support credibility challenges with concrete proof, through either direct or circumstantial evidence, rather than general suspicion.
Evidentiary Tensions and Pattern Based Arguments
The increasing scepter of overt fraud in litigation has intensified evidentiary disputes. Defendants often seek to introduce evidence suggesting broader patterns of conduct such as prior claims involving the same providers or attorneys. Plaintiffs respond that such evidence is unfairly prejudicial and diverts attention from the case at hand.
New York courts have long recognized that relevant evidence may be excluded where its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. Mazella v. Beals, 27 N.Y.3d 694, 709 (2016). Similarly well established is that "it is improper to prove that a person did an act on a particular occasion by showing that he did a similar act on a different, unrelated occasion." Matter of Brandon's Estate, 55 N.Y.2d 206, 210-211 (1982). On the other hand, in the criminal law context, even evidence of uncharged crimes or prior misconduct may be admissible when it is relevant to show motive, intent, knowledge or a common scheme or plan. People v. Henderson, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 01627 (2026). Hence, trial courts must determine whether evidence sheds light on the issues in dispute or instead invites improper inferences. Forman v. Henkin, 30 N.Y.3d 656 (2018). This analysis must take into account that all of the parties on both sides are entitled to a fair trial.
These determinations are highly fact specific and often shape the course of the trial. The admission or exclusion of such evidence can influence whether a case is presented as an isolated use of the judicial system secondary to a single event or as part of a broader scheme of misconduct in this regard. Judicial gatekeeping plays a vital role in maintaining balance.
Jury Perception in an Era of Heightened Scrutiny
These developments are also influencing how juries evaluate civil claims. While many New York venues have traditionally been viewed as favorable to plaintiffs, the increasing prominence of fraud themes introduces a counterweight. Now more than ever jurors must not only evaluate the facts but also gauge the credibility of the parties and the integrity of the process.
Heightened scrutiny can produce varied outcomes. While some jurors may approach claims with greater skepticism, particularly where dubious patterns are suggested, others may react negatively to an unfounded attack on a plaintiff's character. The effectiveness of each side's narrative remains critical. Clearly the trial environment has changed. Jurors are more attuned to questions of trust and authenticity. Fraud-related themes have altered how cases are received and assessed in the courtroom.
Implications for Practitioners and Courts
For practitioners, the rise of fraud as a central theme requires careful strategy. Defense counsel must be prepared to corroborate fraud-related arguments with specific and admissible evidence. For courts, the challenge lies in managing expanded discovery, resolving complex evidentiary issues, and ensuring that trials remain focused on the matters properly before the jury. This requires a graceful balance between allowing legitimate inquiry into potential misconduct and preventing undue prejudice.
Recalibrating Fairness in a Fraud Conscious System
Fraud has always been a concern in civil litigation. What is different in today's landscape is the degree to which it shapes the landscape of trial in New York courts. From discovery through verdict, allegations of coordinated or inflated claims influence how cases are litigated, presenting both an opportunity and a risk. It allows for more rigorous examination of questionable claims while also raising concerns about overreach and the treatment of plaintiffs with legitimate claims. The path forward requires balance. Courts and practitioners must address fraud in a way that preserves the integrity of the system without undermining its fairness to all parties, who are all entitled to due process.
About the Authors:
Margaret Mazlin is a partner at Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP. mmazlin@wshblaw.com
Jennifer M. Provost is a partner at Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP. jprovost@wshblaw.com
Nicole P. Aldridge-Henry is a partner at Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP. naldridgehenry@wshblaw.com