McCrimmon v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCrimmon v. New York City Housing Authority

272 A.D.2d 210, 707 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5862

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 23, 2000·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered September 13, 1999, which, in an action to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of inadequate building security, denied defendant building owner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court [211] and Justice, entered October 25, 1999, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to preclude defendant’s experts from testifying at trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion denied and defendant’s expert witnesses shall be permitted to testify at trial.

Plaintiff offered competent evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the building entrance lock was broken at the time of the attack, and, if so, whether defendant had notice thereof. Furthermore, the codefendant’s criminal trial testimony, suggesting that he gained access to the building when a woman with a baby in arms held the door open for him, simply raises an issue of credibility for the jury. As the motion court noted, such testimony served to bolster the codefendant’s unsuccessful defense.

Since defendant established “good cause” for its failure to timely disclose two expert witnesses who had been retained while the summary judgment motion was pending, and plaintiff was not thereby prejudiced, defendant should not have been precluded from calling the experts at trial (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; see, Gallo v Linkow, 255 AD2d 113, 116-117). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.), entered September 13, 1999, which, in an action to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of inadequate building security, denied defendant building owner’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Order, same court [211] and Justice, entered October 25, 1999, which granted plaintiffs’ motion to preclude defendant’s experts from testifying at trial, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion denied and defendant’s expert witnesses shall be permitted to testify at trial.

Plaintiff offered competent evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the building entrance lock was broken at the time of the attack, and, if so, whether defendant had notice thereof. Furthermore, the codefendant’s criminal trial testimony, suggesting that he gained access to the building when a woman with a baby in arms held the door open for him, simply raises an issue of credibility for the jury. As the motion court noted, such testimony served to bolster the codefendant’s unsuccessful defense.

Since defendant established “good cause” for its failure to timely disclose two expert witnesses who had been retained while the summary judgment motion was pending, and plaintiff was not thereby prejudiced, defendant should not have been precluded from calling the experts at trial (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; see, Gallo v Linkow, 255 AD2d 113, 116-117). Concur— Sullivan, P. J., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

McCrimmon v. New York City Housing Authority, 272 A.D.2d 210, 707 N.Y.S.2d 626, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

272 A.D.2d 210 (McCrimmon v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related