Inwood Sec. Alarm, Inc. v 606 Rest., Inc.

Inwood Sec. Alarm, Inc. v 606 Rest., Inc. 2006 NY Slip Op 09116 [35 AD3d 194] December 7, 2006 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Inwood Security Alarm, Inc., Doing Business as McGivney Brothers Locksmiths, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff,
v
606 Restaurant, Inc., et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

—[*1]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered August 10, 2004, upon a jury verdict, in favor of defendant 606 Restaurant, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The issue of the propriety of the trial court's ruling precluding plaintiff's expert from testifying is not preserved for our review, no objection having been made to the ruling at trial (see e.g. Scherer v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 299 AD2d 301 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 609 [2003]). Were we to consider plaintiff's argument, we would find it without merit. Plaintiff's CPLR 3101 (d) notice did not set forth the nature and relevance of proposed expert testimony and plaintiff's offer of proof during trial, disclosing a new theory of liability, went well beyond what defendants might reasonably have anticipated from the notice (see e.g. Lissak v [*2]Cerabona, 10 AD3d 308 [2004]). We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.