instructed the parties to submit letter-briefs on whether the declarations of Professors Hazard and Wolfram should be admitted. See id. at 10,12-13. III. DISCUSSION A. Should the Court Accept Expert Opinion on a Recusal Motion? “This Court has repeatedly held that the testimony of an expert on matters of domestic law is inadmissable for any purpose.” Music Sales Corp. v. Morris, 73 F.Supp.2d 364, 381 (S.D.N.Y.1999)(emphasis added). The law of this circuit is that while an expert may provide an opinion to help a jury or a judge understand a particular fact, “he may not give testimony stating ultimate legal conclusions based on those facts.” United States v. Bilzerian, 926 F.2d 1285, 1294 (2d Cir.1991); see also Andrews v. Metro North Commuter R.R. Co., 882 F.2d 705, 708 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Scop, 846 F.2d 135, 140 (2d
holding that a defendant was estopped from asserting improper service where the defendants conduct caused the allegedly improper service holding that engineers testimony that defendant was negligent was an improper legal conclusion holding an affidavit statement referring to the notice required for a binding contract was inadmissible as a legal conclusion holding that other evidence properly admitted at trial was sufficiently strong to permit the conclusion that the improper admission of unreliable expert testimony was harmless holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive