Opinion
October 12, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Eugene Nardelli, J.).
The court properly exercised its discretion in precluding the use of the C.P.A.'s testimony and restricting defendant Spinale's private attorney's testimony. Not only was the C.P.A. unqualified to opine as to the value of legal services, his testimony would have sought to draw factual conclusions from the evidence, a function within the province of the jury. As for Spinale's attorney, she was not properly qualified as an expert nor did she have a substantial basis for her opinions regarding the relevant excluded testimony (see, Moore v. Brunswick Hosp. Ctr., 150 A.D.2d 183, 185). We also note that the excluded testimony would not likely have had a substantial influence in bringing about a different verdict (see, Dizak v. State of New York, 124 A.D.2d 329, 331).
Finally, the award of preverdict and postverdict interest was warranted pursuant to CPLR 5001 (a) and 5002 (see, Ash Miller v. Freedman, 114 A.D.2d 823).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.