Seward Park Hous. Corp.. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 February 2010
• Citation: Seward Park Hous. Corp.. v. Greater N.Y. Mut. Ins. Co., 70 A.D.3d 468, 896 N.Y.S.2d 8, 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 1057 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
• Parties: SEWARD PARK HOUSING CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent,v.GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

70 A.D.3d 468

896 N.Y.S.2d 8

2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 01057

SEWARD PARK HOUSING CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.GREATER NEW YORK MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 11, 2010.

Thomas D. Hughes, New York, for appellant.Anderson & Ochs, LLP, New York (Mitchel H. Ochs of counsel), for respondent.MAZZARELLI, J.P., ACOSTA, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, JJ.

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered July 27, 2009, to the extent it granted plaintiff's motion to preclude the testimony of defendant's proposed expert witness concerning the reasonableness of plaintiff's reconstruction delays and how long the project should have taken to complete, unanimously dismissed, with costs.

An evidentiary ruling made before trial is generally reviewable only in connection with an appeal from a judgment rendered after trial; there is no discrete appeal from the order granting plaintiff's motion to preclude portions of the proposed expert's testimony ( see Santos v. Nicolas, 65 A.D.3d 941, 885 N.Y.S.2d 202 [2009] ). The proposed testimony does not clearly involve the merits of the controversy or a substantial right ( cf. Matter of City of New York v. Mobil Oil Corp., 12 A.D.3d 77, 80–81, 783...