Case Name: Eli Hyman, App'lt, v. The Boston Chair Mfg. Co., Resp't
Court: New York Superior Court General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-03-02
Citations: 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 927
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eli Hyman, App’lt, v. The Boston Chair Mfg. Co., Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 36
Pages: 927–928

Head Matter:
Eli Hyman, App’lt, v. The Boston Chair Mfg. Co., Resp’t.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed March 2, 1891.)
1. Witness—Experts.
While it takes but little special knowledge to qualify a witness to testify as an expert, still he should have some knowledge of the subject in order to entitle him to give an opinion.
2. Same.
In an action for breach of a covenant of quiet enjoyment in a lease, testimony of witnesses as to the value of the unexpired term was rejected on the ground that they were not qualified as experts. One of them had rented premises but did not state where they were, and the other had rented premises once, but they were at some distance and were not shown ■ to be of the same nature as those in question. Seld, that neither of the witnesses was a competent witness on this point.
Appeal from a judgment entered on the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The action was brought to recover damages for the breach of a covenant for the quiet and peaceful enjoyment of certain premises leased by the defendant to the plaintiff. The answer was a general denial.
Samuel F. Hyman, for appl’t; James A. Dennison, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Truax, J.
No special damages were alleged in the complaint In an action brought to recover damages for a breach of a covenant of quiet enjoyment contained in a lease, the measure of damages is the value of the unexpired term, less the rent reserved. Mack v. Patchin, 42 N. Y., 167.
Certain questions tending to show special damages were rightly ruled out because special damages had not been pleaded.
Plaintiff attempted to show the value of the uneXpired term by his own testimony and by the testimony of another witness. This testimony was objected to on the ground that neither of the witnesses had qualified as experts, and the objection was sustained, and the plaintiff duly excepted. This ruling was not erroneous.
While it takes but little special knowledge to qualify a witness to testify as an expert, still the witness should have some knowledge of the subject about which he is questioned in order to entitle him to give an opinion.
In this case neither of the witnesses appear to have any knowledge on the subject about which they were questioned.
One of the witnesses testified that he had rented premises, but. where the premises were, whether in this country or another, did not appeal'. The other witness testified that he had rented prem ises once, and this witness, by the way, was a boy of sixteen years of age, but the premises so rented by him were at some distance from the premises in question. And, moreover, it does not. appear whether they were of the same nature as the premises in question or not
Neither one of the witnesses was a competent witness on this point
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Sedgwick, Oh. J., concurs.