Court Opinion

ID: 9939430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 21:10:23.873111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:41:10.076669
License: Public Domain

Dentico v Turner Constr. Co. (2024 NY Slip Op 00728)

Dentico v Turner Constr. Co.

2024 NY Slip Op 00728

Decided on February 9, 2024

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 9, 2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CURRAN, BANNISTER, GREENWOOD, AND NOWAK, JJ.

1063 CA 23-00107

[*1]ALAN DENTICO AND LEANNE DENTICO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS,
vTURNER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, DEFENDANT, AND SBRA, INC., FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHEPLEY BULFINCH, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

GROSS SHUMAN, P.C., BUFFALO (SCOTT M. PHILBIN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS.
BYRNE & O'NEILL, LLP, NEW YORK CITY (MICHAEL J. BYRNE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

	Appeal and cross-appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered December 21, 2022. The order denied in part the motion of defendant SBRA, Inc., formerly known as Shepley Bulfinch, Inc. to preclude certain testimony and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion in limine. 
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal and cross-appeal are unanimously dismissed without costs.
Memorandum: Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained by Alan Dentico (plaintiff) when he fell while exiting a door at the hospital where he worked as a maintenance groundskeeper. There was a three-foot height differential from the floor from which plaintiff was exiting and the ground on the opposite side of the door. Defendant SBRA, Inc., formerly known as Shepley Bulfinch, Inc. (SBRA), was the architect who designed the hospital, including the three-foot elevation differential at the subject doorway. Plaintiffs appeal and SBRA cross-appeals from an order that denied in part the motion in limine of SBRA seeking to preclude plaintiffs' proposed expert from testifying at trial regarding alleged violations by SBRA of certain building codes, and that denied plaintiffs' cross-motion in limine seeking an order precluding SBRA from offering, or moving to preclude, certain evidence.
"Generally, an order [ruling on] a motion in limine, even when 'made in advance of trial on motion papers[,] constitutes, at best, an advisory opinion which is neither appealable as of right nor by permission' " (Thome v Benchmark Main Tr. Assoc., LLC, 125 AD3d 1283, 1285 [4th Dept 2015]; see Harris v Rome Mem. Hosp., 219 AD3d 1129, 1131 [4th Dept 2023]). Here, no appeal lies as of right from the order inasmuch as it "merely adjudicates the admissibility of evidence and does not affect a substantial right" (Of Does 3-6 v Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda Union Free Sch. Dist., 204 AD3d 1450, 1451 [4th Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]). Consequently, the appeal and cross-appeal must be dismissed (see Shahram v St. Elizabeth School, 21 AD3d 1377, 1378 [4th Dept 2005]).
Entered: February 9, 2024
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court