Williams v. Perez
| Decision Date | 31 May 2017 |
| Citation | 150 A.D.3d 1314,55 N.Y.S.3d 404 |
| Parties | Natasha WILLIAMS, appellant, v. Harry A. PEREZ, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
DeToffol & Associates, New York, NY (David J. DeToffol of counsel), for appellant.
Ryan, Perrone & Hartlein, P.C., Mineola, NY (William T. Ryan and William J. Fay of counsel), for respondents.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, and COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JJ.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Greco, Jr., J.), entered January 28, 2016, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, is in favor of the defendants and against her dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action against her former landlords to recover damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of a fall down an interior staircase within a two-story apartment in a two-family home located in Queens (hereinafter the premises).
At the liability phase of the bifurcated jury trial, the plaintiff sought to offer expert opinion testimony from a licensed engineer. The Supreme Court precluded the expert from testifying regarding the alleged applicability and violation of any provisions of the New York City Building Code (), because the expert failed to search and determine when the premises was built or when the staircase was built or allegedly altered. Since the date of construction was not established, the court determined that there was no foundation for the expert's opinion as to whether any particular version of the Building Code was applicable. The expert was permitted to testify that the staircase was not constructed in a safe manner, that it was dangerous, and that it was not in a safe condition.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, finding that they were not negligent. A judgment was entered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff argues on appeal that the Supreme
Court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding her expert from testifying regarding Building Code violations.
"The admissibility and scope of expert testimony is a determination within the discretion of the trial court" (Christoforatos v. City of New York, 90 A.D.3d 970, 970, 935 N.Y.S.2d 641 ; see De Long v. County of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clarke v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...Owens, LLC, 110 A.D.3d 872, 972 N.Y.S.2d 713 ). The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant's 55 N.Y.S.3d 404cross motion to compel the acceptance of its late answer, as the defendant did not offer a reasonable excuse for its failure to serve a timely ......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Thomas
...; Citigroup v. Kopelowitz, 147 A.D.3d 1014, 48 N.Y.S.3d 223 ; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Gallagher, 137 A.D.3d 898, 900, 28 N.Y.S.3d 84 ).150 A.D.3d 1314In opposition, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact rebutting the plaintiff's showing or as to the merit of any of their ......
-
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Soskil
...to the plaintiff's prima facie showing, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Thomas, 150 A.D.3d at 1314, 52 N.Y.S.3d 894; Wells Fargo Bank Minn., Natl. Assn. v. Perez, 41 A.D.3d 590, 837 N.Y.S.2d 877 ).Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly g......
-
Expert witnesses
...evidence concerning diminution of value of property was purely speculative and conclusory. Property maintenance Williams v. Perez , 150 A.D.3d 1314, 55 N.Y.S.3d 404 (2d Dept. 2017). In a personal injury action against plaintif ’s landlord for damages relating to plaintif ’s fall in the buil......
-
Expert witnesses
...evidence concerning diminution of value of property was purely speculative and conclusory. Property maintenance Williams v. Perez , 150 A.D.3d 1314, 55 N.Y.S.3d 404 (2d Dept. 2017). In a personal injury action against plaintif ’s landlord for damages relating to plaintif ’s fall in the buil......
-
Expert witnesses
...evidence concerning diminution of value of property was purely speculative and conclusory. Property maintenance Williams v. Perez , 150 A.D.3d 1314, 55 N.Y.S.3d 404 (2d Dept. 2017). In a personal injury action against plaintiff ’s landlord for damages relating to plaintiff ’s fall in the bu......
-
Expert witnesses
...evidence concerning diminution of value of property was purely speculative and conclusory. Property maintenance Williams v. Perez , 150 A.D.3d 1314, 55 N.Y.S.3d 404 (2d Dept. 2017). In a personal injury action against plaintif ’s landlord for damages relating to plaintif ’s fall in the buil......