Fine Ornaments, Inc. v. Esplanade Gardens, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fine Ornaments, Inc. v. Esplanade Gardens, Inc.

248 A.D.2d 287, 670 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3283

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 287 (Fine Ornaments, Inc. v. Esplanade Gardens, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fine Ornaments, Inc. v. Esplanade Gardens, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 287, 670 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered September 26, 1997, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly excluded plaintiffs photographs, offered to show water damages to plaintiffs premises resulting from specific incidents, on the ground that plaintiffs witnesses were unable to state when the photographs were taken (see, Melendez v New York City Tr. Auth., 196 AD2d 460). While it was error to exclude plaintiffs expert’s testimony absent a pre[288]*288trial request by defendant for the identity of the expert (see, Collins v Greater N. Y. Sav. Bank, 194 AD2d 514), the error was harmless since the issue of monetary damages, as to which the expert would have testified, was rendered academic by the jury’s finding that defendant did not violate the lease by failing to provide heat, hot water and air conditioning. We have considered plaintiffs remaining points and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered September 26, 1997, upon a jury verdict in favor of defendant, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly excluded plaintiffs photographs, offered to show water damages to plaintiffs premises resulting from specific incidents, on the ground that plaintiffs witnesses were unable to state when the photographs were taken (see, Melendez v New York City Tr. Auth., 196 AD2d 460). While it was error to exclude plaintiffs expert’s testimony absent a pre[288]*288trial request by defendant for the identity of the expert (see, Collins v Greater N. Y. Sav. Bank, 194 AD2d 514), the error was harmless since the issue of monetary damages, as to which the expert would have testified, was rendered academic by the jury’s finding that defendant did not violate the lease by failing to provide heat, hot water and air conditioning. We have considered plaintiffs remaining points and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 287, 670 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fine-ornaments-inc-v-esplanade-gardens-inc-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack