then advised Captain Bell of the positive identification, which formed the basis of Bell’s decision to arrest Plaintiff. (3) Plaintiff contends that the district court erred, as a matter of law, in rejecting expert opinion testimony on whether the police investigation was adequate to establish probable cause. As the district court explained, however, the existence of probable cause is a question of law that is not properly the subject of expert testimony. See United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1294 (2d Cir.1991) (“As a general rule an expert’s testimony on issues of law is inadmissable.”). “Whereas an expert may be uniquely qualified by experience to assist the trier of fact, he is not qualified to compete with the judge----” Hygh v. Jacobs, 961 F.2d 359, 364 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); cf. Stuart v. United States, 28 F.3d 1483,
holding that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure holding that the district court should have excluded expert testimony in an excessive force case where the expert testified that defendants conduct was not justified or warranted under the circumstances and totally improper noting that the experts opinions merely told the jury what result to reach holding that expert testimony on what constitutes deadly physical force and whether the use of force was justified should have been excluded holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable recognizing that an arrest requires either physical force  or where physical force is absent submission to the assertion of authority