Opinion
April 27, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
Plaintiffs mid-trial motion to add a malpractice cause of action was properly denied in view of the obvious prejudice to defendant, who did not hire an expert to testify as to the accepted standards of care in a tax audit and whether defendant's conduct conformed thereto ( see, Loomis v. Civetta Corinno Constr. Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 18, 23-24; Sharkey v. Locust Val. Mar., 96 A.D.2d 1093, appeal dismissed 61 N.Y.2d 669; Vega v. Lenox Hill Hosp., 235 A.D.2d 302). The trial court adequately and repeatedly instructed the jury that defendant's testimony regarding out-of-court statements made to him by the IRS agent, claimed on appeal to constitute hearsay, was admitted not for their truth but to explain defendant's actions. The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.