Beer v Equinox Holdings, Inc.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Beer v Equinox Holdings, Inc. 2019 NY Slip Op 33814(U) December 24, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 156484/2016 Judge: Lucy Billings Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2020 03:39 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 " . INDEX NO. 156484/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 46 --------------------------------------x WENDY BEER, Index No. 156484/2016 Plaintiff DECISION AND ORDER - .against EQUINOX HOLDINGS; INC,, EQUINOX COLUMBUS CIRCLE, and EQUINOX COLUMBUS CENTRE INC. Def ehdants J ---------------------~----------------x • LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C.: Plaintiff sues for injuries she sustained May 10, 2016, when her foot became entangled in a handheld hair blower's ~lectrical corcl that hung underneath a sink countertop in the women's room at defendants' health club. loc~er Defendants Equinox Holdings, Inc., and Equinox Columbus Centre Inc. move to preclude the testimony at trial by plaintiff'$ expert engineer James Pugh Ph.D. Defendants claim that Dr. Pugh's anticipated testimony on whether a hair'blower cord hanging underneath a sink countertop. created an unsafe condition is within the knowledge of laypersons, such that the jury may determine the ultimate issue of defendants' liability without an expert's opinion. To support the preclusion of Dr. Pugh's testimony, defendants rely on autho~ity holding that expert opinion is not required to establish a unsafe condition. This authority does not necessarily suppo.rt the proposition that expert opinion on whether a condition was unsafe is impermissible. beer1219 1 2 of 5 See, ~, ) [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2020 03:39 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 INDEX NO. 156484/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2020 People v. Samba, 97 A.D.3d 411, 415 (1st Dep't 2012); v. Baksh, 46 A.D.3d 259, 260 (1st Dep't 2007). He~dricks The sufficiency of the factual evidence to determine whether a condition was unsafe does not bar the admission of opinion evidence to assist the factinder. Therefore Dr. Pugh may explain why and how the hanging cord posed a hazard, without drawing the ultimate conclusions whether the condition in the locker room May 10, 2016, was or was not reasonably safe and whether defendants did or did nqt exerGise reasonable care, which are to be left t6 the jury. States v. Lotirdes Hosp., 100 N.Y.2d 208, 213 (2003); Hendricks v. Baksh, 46 A.D.3d at 259-60; Nevins v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 164 A.D.2d 808-809 (1st Dep't 1990) 807~ Plaintiff's bill of particulars alleges defendants' negligent design of 'the locker room, ''by placing the blow dryer near the sink of said locker room in a careless and reckle~s manner" and·"creating a trap or snare or other trip hazard in an area known ;to be open to female .patrons, guests, visitors and frequented by the female patrons, guests and visitors." of Particulars ~ 4 (Dec. 12, 2016) Ther~fore V. Bill Dr. Pugh also may explain how the hair blower, cord, and countertop could have been safely installed so as not to pose a tripping hazard. design considerations, as we~l These as any explanation why the design, arrangement, or placement of the hair blower, cord, and countertop on May 10, '2 016, posed a hazard, well may involve technical issues requiring a technical explanation for jurors to best comprehend the issues. beer1219 Adams v. Genie Indus., Inc., 14 2 3 of 5 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2020 03:39 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 INDEX NO. 156484/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2020 In sum, the ac;lmissibility of Dr. Pugh's opinions will depend on whether they will-help the jurors bridge the gap between their own common knowledge and the specialized knowledge and experience of an engineer and enlarge their understanding of the factual issues that the jury, not the engineer, is to decide. Lourdes Hosp., 100 N.Y.2d at 212-1~; States v. Styles v. General Motors Corp., 20 A.D.3d 338, 340 (1st Dep't 2005). If no such expertise would assist the jurors in their interpretation of the evidence, the trial justice may exclude the expert testimony~ People v. Clyde, 18 N.Y.3d 145, 154 (2011); People v. Santi, 3 N.Y.3d 234, 246-47 (2004). Contrary to defenda-nts' s suggestion, plaintiff does not offer Dr. Pugh to testify that defendants' disregard of an unsafe condition caused plaintiff's injury or otherwise how plaintiff's injury occurred. Nor may Dr. Pugh testify beyond the scope of his expert disclosure, about accepted industry standards not ! included in his disclosure, for example. _Con~equently, the court grants defendants' motion to the extent of precluding·James Pugh Ph.D. from testifying whetper defendants' locker room May 16, 2016, was reasonably safe; whether defendants exercised reasonable care; how plaintiff's beerl219 3 4 of 5 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/08/2020 03:39 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 122 INDEX NO. 156484/2016 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/08/2020 injury occurred, including whether it was caused by defendants' disregard of an unsafe condition; or beyond the scope of his disclosure. He still may testify why and how the the design, arrangement, or placement of the hair blower, cord, and countertop posed a hazard. The court otherwise denies defendants' motion, without prejudice to defendants' objections at trial.· DATED: December 24, 2019 LUCY BILLINGS, J.S.C. beerl219 4 5 of 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.