Csikos v. S.M. Construction & Contracting, Incorporated

Background

Gergely Csikos sued 230 Park South Apartments and others after he fell from a ladder while working at the Building. His remaining claim was under Section 240(1) of the New York Labor Law, which requires certain owners and contractors to provide properly constructed, placed, and operated safety devices for covered work. The court had previously granted the Building summary judgment on Csikos’s negligence, Section 200, and Section 241(6) claims, while leaving the Section 240(1) claim for further proceedings. S.M. Construction & Contracting, Csikos’s employer at the time of the fall, had been dismissed as a defendant.

The order addressed two evidentiary motions. Csikos asked the court to exclude the testimony of the Building’s engineering expert, Andrew Yarmus, under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, the rule governing expert testimony. The Building sought to limit or exclude testimony from Csikos’s experts: treating physician Dr. Sebastian Lattuga, medical expert Dr. Joseph Carfi, and economic experts Kristin Kucsma and Kenneth Betz.

Csikos’s Motion Regarding Andrew Yarmus

Yarmus proposed to testify about whether an A-frame ladder was an appropriate safety device, whether it was properly used, whether it was generally safe for the work, and whether additional safety equipment was required. He relied on record evidence about Csikos’s height, the ladder, the ceiling, and Csikos’s account that he fell from the fourth rung. Based on those facts, Yarmus concluded that Csikos must have been leaning over if he was standing on the fourth rung, and otherwise questioned whether Csikos’s account of the accident was accurate.

The court found Yarmus qualified to testify about ladder safety and proper ladder use because he was a professional engineer, a certified New York safety-code enforcement official, a registered professional industrial hygienist, and had relevant engineering and inspection experience. The court also found that his opinions about ladder use were based on record evidence rather than speculation. Any disputes about the factual basis of his opinions, including his failure to inspect the accident site or ladder and his failure to consider alternative causes, went to the weight of his testimony rather than its admissibility.

The court nevertheless excluded portions of Yarmus’s proposed testimony. He could not testify that Csikos’s account “could not have occurred,” that Csikos was using the ladder improperly, or that Csikos’s account called the validity of his claims into question. Those conclusions involved simple inferences for the jury or improperly stated legal conclusions. The court also stated that Yarmus could not testify about whether alleged regulatory violations supported Csikos’s legal claims. Accordingly, Csikos’s motion was granted in part and denied in part: Yarmus could testify about ladder safety, proper use, specifications, and the need for additional safety equipment, but not about conclusions that replaced the jury’s role or stated legal conclusions.

Building’s Motion Regarding Csikos’s Experts

The Building sought to limit Dr. Lattuga’s testimony to treatment provided before the end of fact discovery. The court denied that request. Csikos’s disclosure stated that Lattuga would rely on Csikos’s medical history, medical records, and continuing treatment, and would testify about Csikos’s condition, future treatment or surgery, future medical needs, and related costs. The court concluded that this disclosure satisfied the requirements for a treating physician who was not specially retained to provide expert testimony.

The Building also sought to preclude Dr. Carfi from testifying about future medical costs, psychological or psychiatric care, assistive devices, and prescription medications. The court found that Csikos had disclosed future health-care damages and later provided Carfi’s report and Life Care Plan, which identified future medical items, their purposes, frequency, and estimated costs. The court further found that testimony about future psychological care, assistive devices, and medications was not so speculative that it had to be excluded before trial. The Building could challenge those opinions through cross-examination. The court therefore denied the motion regarding Dr. Carfi.

Finally, the Building sought to preclude Kucsma and Betz from testifying about economic damages, including lost earnings and future medical costs. The Building acknowledged that Csikos had provided a damages computation. The court held that challenges to the factual basis of the experts’ calculations were appropriate for cross-examination and could have supported a timely expert-evidence challenge, but did not justify excluding the testimony through this motion. The court denied the motion regarding Kucsma and Betz. To the extent the Building sought to exclude their testimony about future medical costs because it depended on Carfi’s testimony, that request was denied as moot because Carfi’s testimony was found admissible.

Disposition and Further Proceedings

The court’s final disposition was that Csikos’s motion was granted in part and denied in part, and the Building’s motion in limine was denied. The order did not resolve the merits of Csikos’s remaining Section 240(1) claim. Judge Valerie Caproni also set September 1, 2022, as the deadline for the joint pretrial order and scheduled a final pretrial conference for October 6, 2022, with jury selection and trial scheduled to begin October 17, 2022.