Filed Date: 2/10/2012
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
In addition, plaintiffs’ cross appeal must be dismissed because they are not aggrieved by the judgment and order denying defendant’s motion (see generally Town of Massena v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 45 NY2d 482, 488 [1978]). To the extent that plaintiffs contend as an alternative ground for affirmance that their meteorologist’s expert affidavit was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and that the court erred in disregarding it (see generally Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 60 NY2d 539, 545-546 [1983]), we reject that contention. The climatological data upon which the meteorologist based his opinions was not submitted therewith, and thus the affidavit lacked an adequate factual foundation and was of no probative value (see Walter v United Parcel Serv., Inc., 56 AD3d 1187 [2008]; Schuster v Dukarm, 38 AD3d 1358, 1359 [2007]; see generally Romano v Stanley, 90 NY2d 444, 452 [1997]). In any event, the expert’s opinion would not change our determination herein (cf. Zemotel v Jeld-Wen, Inc., 50 AD3d 1586 [2008]). Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Peradotto, Garni and Martoche, JJ.