From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lasek v. Nachtigall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 11, 1993
189 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

January 11, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to show good cause why he did not disclose the fact that he retained an expert witness two weeks prior to trial until after opening statements had been made and the first witness had been called to testify. Under such circumstances, the trial court properly precluded the plaintiff's expert from testifying at trial (see, Corning v. Carlin, 178 A.D.2d 576). Moreover, the plaintiff could not have made out a prima facie case since "[p]roof that the defendant's conduct constituted a deviation from the requisite standard of care could only be adduced by expert opinion testimony" (Sohn v. Sand, 180 A.D.2d 789, 790). Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed the complaint. Mangano, P.J., Sullivan, O'Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lasek v. Nachtigall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 11, 1993
189 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Lasek v. Nachtigall

Case Details

Full title:THEODORE LASEK, Appellant, v. RICHARD NACHTIGALL, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 11, 1993

Citations

189 A.D.2d 749 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
592 N.Y.S.2d 420

Citing Cases

Wager v. Hainline

The general rule that arguments raised for the first time in a reply are not properly before the court…

Rossi v. Matkovic

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately…