Claim That Mold Caused Injury to Apartment Owner Sufficiently Scientific to Get to Jury

Case: Rosati v. Brigham Park Co-Operative Apartments

Court: Supreme Court, Kings County, New York

Date: 7/1712

From: New York attorney Gary E. Rosenberg (personal injury and accident attorney and lawyer; serving Brooklyn and Queens; Queens accident lawyer)

**************************************************

RELATED POSTS:

DEFENSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT DENIED; TENANT'S MOLD EXPERT SATISFIED FRYE & RAISED ISSUE OF FACT AS TO WHETHER MOLD IN APARTMENT INJURED HER

**************************************************

Facts: Plaintiff owns a co-op apartment in Brooklyn. He finds mold and sues the co-op corporation, which is, technically, the owner of the building, and the building's managing agent. The fight in this case is over whether indoor mold inside his apartment made the plaintiff sick, causing him personal injury.

The defendants attacked plaintiff's theory that mold injured him by attacking plaintiff's expert. The defense does this by way of requesting a "Frye" hearing, to try to show that the science relied on by plaintiff's expert witness is unreliable and unacceptable.

This judge spends a long time reviewing both controlling the case law and existing scientific studies and papers to figure out the standards that must be applied to the expert's opinion to decide if it is reliable or acceptable.

Holding: Finding that plaintiff's experts gave acceptable opinions, the judge let plaintiff's case go forward. Plaintiff still must convince a jury that his exposure to mold caused his injuries and asthma and breathing problems.

Categories