2 total
The court struck a proposed expert's litigation reports for non-compliance with rule 53.03 but permitted him to testify as a participant expert.
The court ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence in a construction lien action.
The defendant sought to call Michael Colalillo, a structural engineer, as an expert under rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court found that Mr. Colalillo did not meet the requirements to testify as a rule 53.03 expert due to non-compliance with the rule’s requirements for expert reports.
However, the court permitted Mr. Colalillo to testify as a participant expert, subject to a qualification voir dire, as his opinions were based on his personal observations and participation in the project.
The court struck his litigation reports and affidavit sworn February 11, 2025, but allowed his earlier affidavit and appended reports from 2022 to be admitted.
Summary judgment Motion granted
The Graywood defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action in tort, arguing it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.
The plaintiffs claimed property damage to their restaurant, Kit Kat Bar & Grill, caused by the adjacent construction of a high-rise condominium by the Graywood defendants.
The court found that the plaintiffs had discovered their claim by March 11, 2014, at the latest, when they reported significant damage to their insurer and believed the construction was the cause.
The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that ongoing settlement discussions or the lack of an expert report postponed the limitation period.
The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against the Graywood defendants.
