Legal Opinion
530 East 89 Corp. v. Unger
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 15, 1977PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.
It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to present expert testimony to support allegations of malpractice (McDermott v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., 15 NY2d 20, 24; Nauman v Beecher & Assoc., 24 Utah 2d 172; 7 Wigmore, Evidence [3d ed], § 2090), except where the alleged act of malpractice falls within the competence of a lay jury to evaluate (Hammer v Rosen, 7 NY2d 376). This case is unusual in that the alleged architectural malpractice involves protracted delays in responding to objections…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- McDermott v. Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1964
- Hammer v. RosenNew York Court of Appeals · 1960
- Nauman v. Harold K. Beecher & AssociatesUtah Supreme Court · 1970
- Patterson v. Proctor Paint & Varnish Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1968
3Cited by41 opinions
- Kenneth E. Sitts v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1987
- Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
- Hylick v. HalweilAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Rosos Litho Supply Corp. v. HansenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1984
- Koehler v. SchwartzNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.