Opinion
January 19, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion ( see, Werner v. Sun Oil Co., 65 N.Y.2d 839; see also, Meiselman v. Crown Hgts. Hosp., 285 N.Y. 389, 398) in precluding the testimony of the plaintiff's proposed expert on the subject of the design, installation, and maintenance of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (hereinafter HVAC) on the ground that the witness was not qualified to render an opinion as to whether the defendant had negligently designed the system which it provided to the Columbia School of Law in 1958. The witness did not possess the requisite knowledge to render a reliable opinion, and there was an insufficient factual record upon which to base an opinion that the defendant had deviated from New York City industry standards at the time it submitted its design and installed the HVAC system ( see, Hambsch v. New York City Tr. Auth., 63 N.Y.2d 723, 725; Cassano v. Hagstrom, 5 N.Y.2d 643, 646; see also, Kazlow v. City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 411; Loewenthal v. Catskill Funland, 237 A.D.2d 262; Interstate Cigar Co. v. Dynaire Corp., 176 A.D.2d 699).
Joy, J.P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.