Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Teisha McCRIMMON, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant, Viscount Washington, Defendant.
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 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, 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 A.D.2d 113, 116-117, 679 N.Y.S.2d 377).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 23, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)