Jones v. Sharpe

Mikoll and Levine, JJ.,

concur in part and dissent in part in the following memorandum by Levine, J. Levine, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part). We respectfully disagree with that part of the majority’s decision which upholds the imposition of liability over against the third-party defendant (engineer). In our view, recovery by defendant State University Construction Fund against the engineer must fail because of the absence of the requisite expert testimony that anything it did or failed to do constituted malpractice, i.e., violated accepted standards of architectural practice…