530 East 89 Corp. v. Unger
Cases that cite this one
42 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Co. (7th Cir. 1983)
- Rosos Litho Supply Corp. v. Hansen (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)
- Bridgeton 396 Broadway Fee, LLC v. HiRise Engg. P.C. (New York Supreme Court, New York County 2024)
- Herman v. Franke, Gottsegen, Cox Architects (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Wax NJ-2, LLC v. JFB Construction & Development (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
- Peretz v. Home Depot, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2009)
- Nelson v. Commonwealth (Va. 1988)
- Kenneth E. Sitts v. United States (2d Cir. 1987)
- MJ Womack, Inc. v. State House of Rep. (La. Ct. App. 1987)
- Michael v. He Gin Lee Architect Planner, PLLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Jones v. Sharpe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Bridgeton 396 Broadway Fee, LLC v. HiRise Eng'g P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
- Hogan v. CVS Albany, LLC (District Court, N.D. New York 2022)
- Kim v. Zawie (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Topiel v. Caremount Med., P.C. (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Matter of Lenahan v. Chandler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America (District Court, S.D. New York 2020)
- Toscano v. Weiss (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Wing Wong Realty Corp. v. Flintlock Construction Services, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Talon Air Services LLC v. CMA Design Studio, P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Zeff Design (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Alston v. Sunharbor Manor, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Sheehan v. Pantelidis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Tower Building Restoration, Inc. v. 20 East 9th Street Apartment Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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 raised by the New York City Department of Buildings, rather than the submission of defective plans per se. Whether the allegedly inordinate delays of defendants in complying with objections of the building department constituted architectural malpractice is not within the competence of an untutored layman to evaluate. Common experience and observation offer little guidance. Absent a standard of competent architectural practice based on expert testimony, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to form a reasoned opinion as to whether, given the nature and number of objections raised as well as other relevant attendant circumstances, a delay of two years constituted incompetent architectural practice.
While plaintiff did elicit expert testimony from an architect, we agree with the Appellate Division that his testimony "is not sufficient to support a claim of negligence”. When asked to *778 comment upon the elapsed time between the issuance of and responses to building department objections, the expert witness stated that there had generally been “an unusually long delay”, and that he "would say that there was an undue delay between some or many of the objections and the responses to these objections”. By limiting his opinion to "some or many” of the objections, the witness left it to conjecture whether those unduly delayed responses in particular proximately caused the failure of the construction project. The demise of the project may have been the result of defendants’ failure to comply with objections to which even the most diligent and competent architect would not have satisfactorily responded within the existent time constraints. Put another way, the expert testimony does not so much as imply that a competent architect would have timely complied with all the building department objections. While plaintiff, at the close of its case, is entitled to all favorable inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence (Patterson v Proctor Paint & Varnish Co., 21 NY2d 447), the fact finder may not render a factual determination devoid of support. We do not believe that the expert testimony in this case is sufficient to enable the jury to infer reasonably that defendants’ undue delays proximately caused plaintiff’s injury.
Insofar as the breach of contract cause of action is concerned, we agree with the Appellate Division that defendants never guaranteed plaintiff that they would provide plans acceptable to the department of buildings.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Cooke concur in memorandum; Judge Fuchs-berg taking no part.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.