In Matter of State of New York v. Motzer (79 AD3d 1687 [4th Dept 2010]), the Court allowed expert testimony by a forensic psychologist that was based upon similar interviews with collateral sources, because, in that case, "the expert testified that the [collateral source materials] are commonly relied upon by the profession when conducting a psychological examination to determine whether a respondent is a dangerous sex offender requiring confinement" (79 AD3d at 1688). This is a clear expression of the liberal approach--the trial court accepted, as it was entitled to, the expert's testimony that the collateral source material was commonly (and reasonably) relied upon by experts in the field, and that was enough--no further inquiry into the reliability of the collateral source material was required by the Fourth Department.