530 East 89 Corp. v. Unger, 373 N.E.2d 276 (NY 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
530 East 89 Corp. v. Unger, 373 N.E.2d 276 (NY 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 6× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1984 · 2 courts · …it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to present expert testimony to support allegations of malpractice ... except where the alleged act of malpractice falls within the competence of a lay jury to evaluate.... at p. 277 ✓
83 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Company, George A. Fuller Company, Counterclaimant-Appellant v. Ed Hoffman, Counterdefendant-Appellee. Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Company, George A. Fuller Company, Third Party v. Schmidt, Garden and Erickson, Third Party Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Counterdefendant-Appellant v. George A. Fuller Company, Counterclaimant and Third Party Plaintiff- and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Schmidt, Garden & Erickson, Third Party Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Counterdefendant-Appellee v. George A. Fuller Company, Counterclaimant and Third Party Plaintiff- and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Schmidt, Garden & Erickson, Third Party Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Counterdefendant v. George A. Fuller Company, Counterclaimant and Third Party Plaintiff- and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Ed Hoffman Excavating, Inc., Counterdefendant-Appellant, and Schmidt, Garden & Erickson, Third Party (ca3, 1984-01-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Company, George A. Fuller Company, Counterclaimant-Appellant v. Ed Hoffman, Counterdefendant-Appellee. Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Company, George A. Fuller Company, Third Party v. Schmidt, Garden and Erickson, Third Party Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Counterdefendant-Appellant v. George A. Fuller Company, Counterclaimant and Third Party Plaintiff- and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Schmidt, Garden & Erickson, Third Party Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Counterdefendant-Appellee v. George A. Fuller Company, Counterclaimant and Third Party Plaintiff- and Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Schmidt, Garden & Erickson, Third Party Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine, Counterdefendant v. George A. Fuller Company, Counterclaimant and Third Party Plaintiff- and Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Ed Hoffman Excavating, Inc., Counterdefendant-Appellant, and Schmidt, Garden & Erickson, Third Party (5×) also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule)
3rd Cir. · 1984 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to present expert testimony to support allegations of malpractice ... except where the alleged act of malpractice falls within the competence of a lay jury to evaluate....
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine v. George A. Fuller Co. (5×) also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule)
7th Cir. · 1983 · quote attribution · 3 verbatim quotes · confidence high
it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to present expert testimony to support allegations of malpractice ... except where the alleged act of malpractice falls within the competence of a lay jury to evaluate....
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bridgeton 396 Broadway Fee, LLC v. HiRise Eng'g P.C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
Moreover, plaintiff failed to set forth a prima facie case on its claim of professional malpractice because it did not proffer any expert testimony concerning the appropriate standard of care for a bank engineer ( see 530 E. 89 Corp. v Unger , 43 NY2d 776, 777 [1977]; Talon Air Servs.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hogan v. CVS Albany, LLC
N.D.N.Y. · 2022 · confidence medium
The plaintiff must establish the applicable standard of care through expert testimony, unless “the alleged act of malpractice falls within the competence of a lay jury to evaluate.” 530 East 89 Corp. v. Unger, 43 N.Y.2d 776, 777 (1977) (citations omitted); see Sitts v. United States, 811 F.2d 736, 739 (2d Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Lenahan v. Chandler
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
Petitioner's failure to report visible deterioration, which he admitted was required, "falls within the competence of a lay [person] to evaluate" ( 530 E. 89 Corp. v Unger , 43 NY2d 776, 777 [1977]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Herman v. Franke, Gottsegen, Cox Architects
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to present expert testimony to support allegations of malpractice (see 530 E. 89 Corp. v Unger, 43 NY2d 776, 777 [1977]; McDermott v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., 15 NY2d 20, 24 [1964]), except where the alleged act of malpractice falls within the competence of a lay jury to evaluate (see 530 E. 89 Corp. v Unger, 43 NY2d at 777 ; Hammer v Rosen, 7 NY2d 376, 380 [1960]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael v. He Gin Lee Architect Planner, PLLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Where, as here, the causes of action submitted to the jury hinge on allegations of professional malpractice against an architect, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to present expert testimony to support them (see 530 E. 89 Corp. v Unger, 43 NY2d 776, 777 [1977]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wax NJ-2, LLC v. JFB Construction & Development
S.D.N.Y. · 2015 · confidence medium
Unless the facts and circumstances of the case would permit a lay person to evaluate whether an architect’s performance lived up to the accepted standards of practice in a given case, the plaintiff bears the burden to present expert evidence setting forth the appropriate standard of care. 530 E. 89 Corp. v. Unger, 43 N.Y.2d 776 , 402 N.Y.S.2d 382 , 373 N.E.2d 276, 277 (1977); see also Sitts v. United States, 811 F.2d 736, 739 (2d Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tower Building Restoration, Inc. v. 20 East 9th Street Apartment Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
The co-op failed to meet its burden to adduce credible expert testimony that Brice’s plans and specifications deviated from locally prevailing standards of architectural practice (see 530 E. 89 Corp. v Unger, 43 NY2d 776, 777 [1977]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kenneth E. Sitts v. United States
2d Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
A. The Requirement that Expert Medical Testimony Be Presented It is well established in New York law that “unless the alleged act of malpractice falls within the competence of a lay jury to evaluate, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to present expert testimony in support of the allegations to establish a prima facie case of malpractice.” Keane v. Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, 96 A.D.2d 505, 506 , 464 N.Y.S.2d 548, 549 (2d Dep’t 1983); see, e.g., Alvarez v. Prospect Hospital, 68 N.Y.2d 320, 327 , 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 927 , 501 N.E.2d 572, 576 (1986); 530 East 89th Corp. v.…
discussed Cited "see" Media Glow Digital, LLC v. Panasonic Corporation of North America
S.D.N.Y. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See 530 East 89 Corp. v. Unger, 43 N.Y.2d 776, 777 (1977) (professional malpractice); Michael v. He Gin Lee Architect Planner, PLLC, 153 A.D.3d 704, 705 (2d Dept. 2017) (same); Herman v. Franke, Gottsegen, Cox Architects, 155 A.D.3d 841, 842 (2d Dept. 2017) (same); Wax NJ-2, LLC v. JFB Constr. & Dev., 111 F. Supp. 3d 434, 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (professional negligence).
examined Cited "see" Peretz v. Home Depot, Inc. (3×)
E.D.N.Y · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See 530 East 89 Corp. v. Unger, 43 N.Y.2d 776 , 402 N.Y.S.2d 382 , 373 N.E.2d 276 (1977) (architects); Gentler v. Sol Masch & Co., 40 A.D.3d 282 , 835 N.Y.S.2d 178 (N.Y.App.Div.2007) (accountants); 470 Owners Corp. v. Heimer, 258 A.D.2d 558 , 685 N.Y.S.2d 747 (N.Y.App.Div.1999) (engineers); Greene v. Payne, 197 A.D.2d 664 , 602 N.Y.S.2d 883, 885 (N.Y.App.Div.1993) (attorneys).
cited Cited "see" Restrepo v. State
nyclaimsct · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
(Hammer v Rosen, 7 NY2d 376, 380 ; see, 530 E. 89 Corp. v Unger, 43 NY2d 776 .) We think this is such a case.
examined Cited "see" Nelson v. Commonwealth (3×)
Va. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See 530 East 89 Corp. v. Unger, 43 N.Y.2d 776, 777, 373 N.E.2d 276, 277 , 402 N.Y.S.2d 382, 383 (1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Wedlock v. Troncoso
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Fund, 99 AD2d 860, 862 [Levine, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part], mod on dissenting/ concurring mem below 64 NY2d 709 ; see also, 530 E. 89 Corp. v Unger, 43 NY2d 776, 777 ).” The plaintiffs did not present any evidence other than their own assertion that the fence was dangerous or structurally not fit for its intended purpose, which is to keep persons out of the vacant lot.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Columbus v. Smith & Mahoney, P. C.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Fund, 99 AD2d 860, 862 [Levine, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part], mod on dissenting I concurring mem below 64 NY2d 709 ; see also, 530 E. 89 Corp. v Unger, 43 NY2d 776, 777 ).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Estate of Burke v. Peter J. Repetti & Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Ctr., 204 AD2d 271, 272 ; see also, 530 E. 89 Corp. v Unger, 43 NY2d 776 ; Greene v Payne Wood & Littlejohn, 197 AD2d 664, 666 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
530 East 89 Corp., Appellant,
v.
Arthur A. Unger Et Al., Doing Business as Unger & Unger, Respondents. (And Another Action.)
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 15, 1977.
373 N.E.2d 276
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Benedict Ginsberg for appellant., Nathaniel Rothstein for respondent.
Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Cooke Concur in Memorandum Judge Fuchsberg Taking No Part.
Cited by 42 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #29,931 of 633,719
Citer courts: Third Circuit (2) · Seventh Circuit (2)

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, without costs.

It is incumbent upon the plaintiff to present expert testimony to support allegations of malpractice (McDermott v Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat Hosp., 15 NY2d 20, 24; Nauman v Beecher & Assoc., 24 Utah 2d 172; 7 Wigmore, Evidence [3d ed], § 2090), except where the alleged act of malpractice falls within the competence of a lay jury to evaluate (Hammer v Rosen, 7 NY2d 376). This case is unusual in that the alleged architectural malpractice involves protracted delays in responding to objections raised by the New York City Department of Buildings, rather than the submission of defective plans per se. Whether the allegedly inordinate delays of defendants in complying with objections of the building department constituted architectural malpractice is not within the competence of an untutored layman to evaluate. Common experience and observation offer little guidance. Absent a standard of competent architectural practice based on expert testimony, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to form a reasoned opinion as to whether, given the nature and number of objections raised as well as other relevant attendant circumstances, a delay of two years constituted incompetent architectural practice.

While plaintiff did elicit expert testimony from an architect, we agree with the Appellate Division that his testimony "is not sufficient to support a claim of negligence”. When asked to[*778] comment upon the elapsed time between the issuance of and responses to building department objections, the expert witness stated that there had generally been “an unusually long delay”, and that he "would say that there was an undue delay between some or many of the objections and the responses to these objections”. By limiting his opinion to "some or many” of the objections, the witness left it to conjecture whether those unduly delayed responses in particular proximately caused the failure of the construction project. The demise of the project may have been the result of defendants’ failure to comply with objections to which even the most diligent and competent architect would not have satisfactorily responded within the existent time constraints. Put another way, the expert testimony does not so much as imply that a competent architect would have timely complied with all the building department objections. While plaintiff, at the close of its case, is entitled to all favorable inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence (Patterson v Proctor Paint & Varnish Co., 21 NY2d 447), the fact finder may not render a factual determination devoid of support. We do not believe that the expert testimony in this case is sufficient to enable the jury to infer reasonably that defendants’ undue delays proximately caused plaintiff’s injury.

Insofar as the breach of contract cause of action is concerned, we agree with the Appellate Division that defendants never guaranteed plaintiff that they would provide plans acceptable to the department of buildings.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Cooke concur in memorandum; Judge Fuchs-berg taking no part.

Order affirmed.