GMAC COMMERCIAL CR. v. MITCHELL-B.J. LTD

The record does not support BNY's contention that it has made a prima facie showing that Henriette Shidlofsky's signature on the guaranty was a forgery, particularly where BNY continues to maintain its action against her on the guaranty. Moreover, there are issues of fact as to whether the notary was acting within the scope of her employment in notarizing the guaranty.

North Fork was not entitled to introduce testimony from a banking expert since it failed to demonstrate how the proposed expert testimony would clarify an issue involving professional and technical knowledge beyond the ken of the typical juror (see, DeLong v. County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296, 307). In light of the circumstance that the proposed expert testimony was properly rejected and North Fork's concession that all other discovery has been completed, the court properly denied that branch of the cross motion seeking to vacate the note of issue.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.