Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Brien, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff's contention that it was error for the trial court to exclude expert testimony concerning the standards for the design and maintenance of walkways of private homes is without merit. It is well established that the admissibility of expert testimony on any particular issue is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court ( see, De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 307; Selkowitz v. County of Nassau, 45 N.Y.2d 97, 101-102; Crawford v. Koloniaris, 199 A.D.2d 235). "It is for the trial court in the first instance to determine when jurors are able to draw conclusions from the evidence based on their day-to-day experience, their common observation and their knowledge, and when they would be benefited by the specialized knowledge of an expert witness" ( People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 433). Since the plaintiff did not allege any violations of architectural standards or construction codes, ordinances, or the like ( cf., Chanler v. Manocherian, 151 A.D.2d 432, 432-435), the maintenance of a walkway to a private house was not a subject calling for technical knowledge possessed by an expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror ( see, Nevins v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 164 A.D.2d 807, 808-809). To permit the expert to testify that the walkway was not properly maintained and created an unsafe condition would be to permit the expert to determine the ultimate issue in this case and usurp the function of the jury ( see, Nevins v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., supra; Kulak v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 40 N.Y.2d 140, 148; Leonick v. City of New York, 120 A.D.2d 573).
The plaintiff's remaining contention, that the trial court erred in charging the jury, is without merit as the court's instructions adequately conveyed the sum and substance of the applicable law to be charged ( see, Phillips v. United Artists Communications, 201 A.D.2d 634, 635) and carefully outlined the contentions of the parties ( see, Dunn v. Levinson, 121 A.D.2d 596). O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.