Opinion
Argued March 8, 2001
May 21, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Spano, J.), dated September 14, 1999, as, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendants Thomas Chase and Dolen Corporation and against them.
Eckhaus Olson, New York, N.Y. (Roger D. Olson of counsel), for appellants.
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman Dicker, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Larry H. Lum, Erica V. Wolfe, and Katherine McDonough of counsel), for respondents.
Mead, Hecht, Conklin Gallagher, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Elizabeth M. Hecht, Sara Luca Salvi, and Kevin Conklin of counsel), for defendant Shanti Mhatre.
Gallagher, Walker, Bianco Plastaras, Mineola, N.Y. (Charles B. Weber of counsel), for defendant Agnes Santini.
Isserlis Sullivan (John Gifford Molloy, P.C., White Plains, N.Y, of counsel), for defendant Carlos Salvilla.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO and DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and a new trial is granted against the defendants Thomas Chase and Dolen Corporation and against the defendant Shanti Mhatre on the cross claims of the defendant Thomas Chase and Dolen Corporation.
It is well established that unless the jurors are unable or incompetent to evaluate the evidence and draw inferences and conclusions, the opinion of an expert, which intrudes on the province of the jury, is both unnecessary and improper (see, Kulak v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 40 N.Y.2d 140; Fortunato v. Dover Union Free School Dist., 224 A.D.2d 658). Expert testimony is proper only when it would help to clarify an issue calling for professional or technical knowledge possessed by the expert and beyond the ken of the typical juror (see, De Long v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 307; Selkowitz v. County of Nassau, 45 N.Y.2d 97). In this case, the expert's testimony involved matters within the ordinary knowledge of the jurors and, therefore, was improperly admitted.
In view of our determination, it is unnecessary to reach the plaintiffs' remaining contentions.
SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.