Summary
In Roux, the issue was whether plaintiff's expert had usurped the function of the trial court by referring to the Multiple Dwelling Law and Building Code in offering his expert opinion that a single step stair is inherently dangerous (254 AD2d at 183).
Summary of this case from Langer v. 116 Lexington Ave., Inc.Opinion
October 22, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J. and a jury).
Plaintiff's expert witness did not usurp the function of the court when he referred to the Multiple Dwelling Law and the Building Code in support of his opinion that a single step stair is inherently dangerous and a deviation from good and accepted building practice (Multiple Dwelling Law § 52; Administrative Code of City of N Y § 27-375 [d] [2]; § 27-369 [e]). Courts regularly permit expert testimony on the question of whether a certain condition or omission was in violation of a statute or regulation ( see, Dufel v. Green, 84 N.Y.2d 795; see also, Murphy v. Broadway 48-49th St. Assocs., 246 A.D.2d 392; Red-cross v. State of New York, 241 A.D.2d 787, 789-790, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 801; Rodriguez v. City of New York, 189 A.D.2d 166, 170-171; Portilla v. Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 631). There is no merit to defendants' contention that the expert was actually testifying as to the meaning and applicability of the law ( compare, Rodriguez v. New York City Hous. Auth., 209 A.D.2d 260). The awards for future home attendant services and for past and future pain and suffering do not deviate materially from what is reasonable compensation under the circumstances, and we note defendants' failure to contravene plaintiff's medical evidence with expert evidence of their own ( see, Rubin v. First Ave. Owners, 209 A.D.2d 367). We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.