throbber
Case 1:01-cv-01311-RPP Document 77 Filed 05/20/11 Page 1 of 5
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-----------------------------------------------------------)(
`HYUNG SUN KIM
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`LEO RING, FRANK RING, and MICHAEL RING,
`
`Defendants,
`-----------------------------------------------------------)(
`LEO RING, FRANK RING, and MICHAEL RING
`Third Party Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`DA VID & YOUNG CO., INC,
`Third Party Defendant,
`-----------------------------------------------------------)(
`
`ROBERT P. PATTERSON, JR., U.S.D.J.
`
`I. Introduction
`
`OPINION & ORDER
`
`01 CV 1311 (RPP)
`
`On May 18, 2011, Defendants Leo Ring, Frank Ring, and Michael Ring ("Ring
`
`Defendants" or "Defendants") moved this court to preclude, or in the alternative, limit the
`
`testimony of Plaintiffs new expert, Harold Krongelb-Heimer, P.E. ("Mr. Krongelb-Heimer").
`
`On May 19,2011, Third Party Defendant David & Young Co., Inc. ("Third Party Defendant" or
`
`"David & Young") moved to preclude the proposed testimony of Mr. Krongelb-Heimer.
`
`For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is granted in part and the Third Party
`
`Defendant's motion is denied.
`
`II. Background
`
`On June 22, 2003, Plaintiffs expert, Richard Heimer, P.E., CMr. Heimer") conducted an
`
`inspection of the premises at issue in this case, 15 West 27th Street, New York. He provided a
`
`report of findings to Plaintiffs counsel by letter dated September 22,2003. By order dated
`
`1
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:01-cv-01311-RPP Document 77 Filed 05/20/11 Page 2 of 5
`
`November 1 2003, Judge Batts, who formerly presided over the instant action, directed that
`
`discovery be completed within forty-five days. No expert disclosure was provided to Defendants
`
`until October 14, 2004, after the close of discovery. On this date, counsel was presented with an
`
`affidavit ofMr. Heimer dated October 14, 2004 and a report dated September 22, 2003.
`
`This case was marked ready for possible imminent trial assignment by Judge Batts on
`
`August 25,2010 and was assigned to Judge Conti's trial calendar on September 17,2010. The
`
`case was re-assigned to this Judge on April 7, 2011. On that date, this Court set a trial date of
`
`May 23, 2011.
`
`On May 10,2011, the Court heard argument on Defendant's motion in limine to exclude
`
`or limit the testimony of Mr. Heimer as an expert witness. The Defendants and Third Party
`
`Defendants argued in part, that because the expert was not disclosed in a timely manner and
`
`because they were not given the opportunity to depose him, his testimony at trial should be
`
`precluded. The Court denied this motion and ordered Plaintiffs counsel to produce Mr. Heimer
`
`for deposition by the Defendant and Third Party Defendant. The parties stipulated that Plaintiffs
`
`counsel would produce Mr. Heimer for deposition on May 16, 20 II.
`
`On May 1 2011, Plaintiff s counsel informed the Defendant and Third Party Defendant
`
`that Mr. Heimer had died approximately one and a half years ago. By letter dated May 12, 2011,
`
`Plaintiffs counsel advised the Court and counsel that his expert had died and that he now wished
`
`to substitute a new expert, Harold Krongelb-Heimer ("Mr. Krongelb-Heimer"), P.E., for use at
`
`trial. Mr. Krongelb-Heimer is the son-in-law ofMr. Heimer. The Court directed Plaintiffto have
`
`his new expert prepare a report that was limited in scope to the conclusions reached by Mr.
`
`Heimer's 2003 report, and to provide it to counsel in advance of the deposition ofMr. Krongelb­
`
`Heimer on May 16,2011.
`
`2
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:01-cv-01311-RPP Document 77 Filed 05/20/11 Page 3 of 5
`
`On May 16,2011, Plaintiirs counsel served the report of Mr. Krongelb-Heimer to the
`
`Court and counsel. This report asserted claims under different New York City Administrative
`
`Code provisions and under difJerent theories than those claimed to be at issue in Plaintiffs prior
`
`expert disclosure.
`
`III. Discussion
`
`Plaintiffs counsel was explicitly directed to have Mr. Krongelb-Heimer prepare a new
`
`report which was limited in scope to Mr. Heimer's conclusions in his 2003 report. In violation of
`
`this directive, Mr. Krongelb-Heimer's report expounds new theories of liability, includes
`
`references and analysis regarding four additional sections of the New York City Administrative
`
`Code, and cites to some 95 building violations, including two violations in 2000 (two years after
`
`Plaintiffs injury), in corning to his conclusion. As such, Mr. Krongelb-Heimer's testimony at
`
`trial on this new information is hereby precluded. Mr. Krongelb-Heimer's testimony at trial shall
`
`be limited to the conclusions reached by his father-in-law, Mr. Heimer in his 2003 report
`
`namely that "by not maintaining the premises in a safe manner and by not prohibiting access to
`
`the area where Mr. Kim fell, the owner was not maintaining his building in a manner proscribed
`
`by the New York City Building Code [Sections 27-127 and 27-128]." (Expert Report of Richard
`
`Heimer dated Sept. 22, 2003 at 4.)
`
`IV. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to limit Mr. Krongelb-Heimer's testimony
`
`at trial is granted. Defendant and Third Party Defendant's motion to preclude Mr. Krongelb­
`
`Heimer from testifying at trial is denied for the reasons previously stated by this Court at the
`
`telephone conference held on May 12, 2011.
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:01-cv-01311-RPP Document 77 Filed 05/20/11 Page 4 of 5
`
`SO ORDERED
`
`
`
`Dated: New Yor,k New York .
`
`May ~··O, 2011
`
`C;J.ir&~
`
`t
`
`
`
`Robert P Patterson, Jr..
`
`U.S.D.l.
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:01-cv-01311-RPP Document 77 Filed 05/20/11 Page 5 of 5
`
`Copies ofthis Order sent to:
`
`Counsel for the Plaintiff
`
`Daniel D. Kim
`Law Offices of Daniel D. Kim
`350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4610
`New York, NY 10118
`(212)643-0090
`
`Coun~el for the Defendants/Third Party Plaintiffs
`
`Patrick Joseph Crowe
`Crowe & Fassberg P.C
`3000 Marcus A venue Suite 1 E5
`Lake Success, NY 11042
`(516)-570-4012
`
`Counsel for Third Party Defendant
`
`Patrick J. Cooney
`Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Esqs.
`200 LV. Willets Road
`Albertson, New York, 11507
`(516)535-2411
`
`5

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket