hygienist affidavit was submitted." (See Defendants' Brief Responsive to Plaintiff's In
Limine Request for Trial Unification dated September 24, 2012.) Assuming Defendants are
correct that a party seeking unification, at least in a case like this, must support the request with
medical evidence - - a proposition for which Defendants cite no authority, the record on the
evidentiary hearing held at Defendants' instance is more than sufficient.
The existence of one or more species of mold in Plaintiff's apartment, and the nature and
level of Plaintiff's exposure from time to time, are crucial questions as to both liability and
damages. Evidence as to the nature of Plaintiff's injuries will "necessarily assist[ ] the [jury] in
making a determination with respect to the issue of liability" (see Galarza v Crown Container
Co., Inc., 90 AD3d at 704), and "the nature of [his] injuries has an important bearing on the
question of liability" (see Perez v Madoff, 69 AD3d at 821-22.) Even if Dr. Grant's
testimony is limited in response to Defendants' pending motion in limine, Dr. Harrison's
testimony as to his diagnosis and treatment of Plaintiff would bear both on liability, including
specific causation, and on damages.
Admission or Preclusion of Documents Marked at Evidentiary Hearing
At the evidentiary hearing, the parties marked as exhibits 180 documents and other material,
145 for Plaintiff and 35 for Defendants. All of the marked exhibits, whether as evidence or for
identification only, retain their status for trial. Approximately half of the marked exhibits are
articles, studies, and other sources upon which the experts relied for their respective opinions,
and they remain available as foundation for the experts' testimony at trial. They are presently