Goverski v. Miller
| Decision Date | 05 April 2001 |
| Citation | 723 N.Y.S.2d 526,282 A.D.2d 789 |
| Parties | HELEN GOVERSKI, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>MICHAEL MILLER et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
This appeal stems from an incident occurring on April 29, 1996, when plaintiff tripped and fell from a wooden stairway located on premises purchased by defendants Michael Miller and Denise Miller in March 1994. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was going to visit her sister, a tenant at the premises. At trial, plaintiff testified that the wooden stairway was wet due to rain and, although there was a handrail along the right side of the stairway, she did not recall utilizing it as she ascended the stairway. She indicated that she proceeded up the stairway somewhere between the middle and right side thereof and, as she climbed from the second to the third step, she either caught her foot underneath the third step or at its tip, causing her to lose her balance. She fell off the left side of the stairway, which did not have a railing.
Plaintiff commenced this personal injury action alleging that the stairway was improperly designed and constructed and, furthermore, that the Millers were negligent in permitting a dangerous, hazardous and unsafe condition to exist on their premises. The Millers filed a third-party action against Boghosian Brothers, Inc., which allegedly built the stairway in 1985 for the former owners, and an architect, William Stevens, whom the Millers hired in February 1994 to inspect the premises but who failed to identify any problems with the stairway at that time.[1] Thereafter, plaintiff amended her complaint to assert a direct negligence cause of action against Boghosian. Ultimately, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of defendants after concluding that plaintiff's own negligence was the sole cause of the accident, resulting in this appeal.
Initially, we are unpersuaded by plaintiff's argument that Supreme Court committed reversible error when it ruled that plaintiff did not lay a proper foundation in order to allow her expert, Richard Pikul, a civil engineer, to offer his opinion that the stairway violated the maximum riser height and the variation in riser height provisions set forth in the State Building Code. Supreme Court held that Pikul's opinion would not be submitted to the jury after an offer of proof showed that his conclusions as to the measurements of the riser heights were based on an assumption that plaintiff, at the time of the accident, was stepping onto a different part of the stairway than what her testimony indicated at trial.
Specifically, prior to the offer of proof, plaintiff testified that she was stepping between the middle and right side of the stairway when she tripped.[2] Pikul acknowledged that he was unsure of the exact location and offered to "split the difference" on his specific measurements of the riser heights at the center and the right side of the particular step in order to give an opinion. Notably, "the admissibility of expert testimony on a particular point is addressed to the discretion of the trial court" (De Long v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307). The pivotal concern is whether such testimony would be helpful, as opposed to unduly confusing (see, Prince, Richardson on Evidence § 7-301, at 457 [Farrell 11th ed]; see generally, People v Green, 250 AD2d 143, 145, lv denied 93 NY2d 873). Here, given the equivocal nature of Pikul's testimony and his additional concession that the riser heights of the wooden steps would naturally vary over time through warping and throughout the seasons based upon changing weather conditions, we are unpersuaded that Supreme Court abused its discretion.
Next, plaintiff contends that Supreme Court erred when it declined plaintiff's request for a missing witness charge against Boghosian with respect to Irving Paris, an architect who had examined the subject stairway at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warner v. Kain
...151 A.D.3d 1455, 1457, 59 N.Y.S.3d 154 [2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 982, 67 N.Y.S.3d 584, 89 N.E.3d 1264 [2017] ; Goverski v. Miller, 282 A.D.2d 789, 791, 723 N.Y.S.2d 526 [2001] ...
-
Pascuzzi v. Cci Cos. Inc.
...expert proof of causation" (Duffen v State of New York, supra, at 654), and should have been precluded or stricken (see, Goverski v Miller, 282 A.D.2d 789, 789-790; Tucker v Elimelech, 184 A.D.2d 636, 637). There was insufficient proof of plaintiff's demeanor before or after the accident to......
- Goverski v. Miller
-
Tilison v. Callanan Indus., Inc.
...95 N.Y.2d 767 [2000] ). “The pivotal concern is whether such testimony would be helpful, as opposed to unduly confusing” (Goverski v. Miller, 282 A.D.2d 789 [2001] ). Now, Callanan submits an affidavit by its expert engineer, Mr. Serth and a Memorandum of Law in support of its request for a......
-
Expert witnesses
...marks in a photograph of the accident scene. The police officer lacked sufficient skill to give such an opinion. Goverski v. Miller , 282 A.D.2d 789, 723 N.Y.S.2d 526 (3rd Dept. 2001). In a slip and fall case, the trial court did not commit error by precluding the expert opinion of a civil ......
-
Summation
...if it were favorable to the party. De Vaul v. Carvigo Inc ., 138 A.D.2d 669, 526 N.Y.S.2d 483 (2d Dept. 1988); Goverski v. Miller , 282 A.D.2d 789, 723 N.Y.S.2d 526 (3d Dept. 2001). However, such comments are appropriate only when the testimony is relevant to an issue to be decided. Godfrey......
-
Summation
...if it were favorable to the party. De Vaul v. Carvigo Inc ., 138 A.D.2d 669, 526 N.Y.S.2d 483 (2d Dept. 1988); Goverski v. Miller , 282 A.D.2d 789, 723 N.Y.S.2d 526 (3d Dept. 2001). However, such comments are appropriate only when the testimony is relevant to an issue to be decided. Godfrey......
-
Summation
...under that party’s control whose testimony the party could be expected to produce if it were favorable to the party. Goverski v. Miller , 282 A.D.2d 789, 723 N.Y.S.2d 526 (3d Dept. 2001); De Vaul v. Carvigo Inc ., 138 A.D.2d 669, 526 N.Y.S.2d 483 (2d Dept. 1988). However, such comments are ......