Opinion
570893/05.
Decided April 19, 2006.
Defendants appeal from an order of the Civil Court, New York County (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered July 13, 2005, which denied their motion to preclude plaintiff's expert testimony and for partial summary judgment.
Appeal from order (Anil C. Singh, J.), entered July 13, 2005, dismissed, without costs, as nonappealable.
PRESENT: McCOOE, J.P., GANGEL-JACOB, SCHOENFELD, JJ.
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of defendants' negligent application of an adhesive product in her apartment. Among numerous other injuries, plaintiff claimed that she suffered from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity ("MCS"). Prior to trial, defendants moved to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's proposed expert on the ground that MCS is not a generally accepted diagnosis in the medical community and for partial summary judgment with respect to the MCS claim. Following a Frye hearing ( see Frye v. United States, 123 F 1013 [1923]), the court denied defendants' motion to exclude plaintiff's expert testimony relating to the MCS claim. This appeal ensued. "An evidentiary ruling made before trial is generally reviewable only in connection with an appeal from the judgment rendered after trial" ( Rodriguez v. Ford Motor Company, 17 AD3d 159). Contrary to defendants' argument, this appeal does not fall within the exception to the rule ( see e.g. Matter of City of New York v. Mobil, 12 AD3d 77) because it does not affect the liability portion of the case, which will go to trial on the other alleged injuries even if we were to rule that MCS is not a medically recognized diagnosis ( see Scope v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., AD3d, 809 NYS2d 46 {26 AD3d 226} [2006]). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as seeking an advisory opinion on a noncritical evidentiary question.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.