Opinion
January 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.).
Defendant's expert's opinion that the roof collapsed because of patent decay, which was based on his after-the-fact observation of dry rot that had caused the paint on a girder to discolor, was speculative insofar as meant to support the conclusion that such discoloration was observable before the roof collapsed, and insufficient to controvert the submissions of plaintiffs experts that their first-hand observations before the collapse did not reveal any observable decay ( see, Romano v. Stanley, 90 N.Y.2d 444, 451-452). We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be either unpreserved or without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.