Opinion
March 9, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, with costs, and a new trial is granted.
An officer of a corporation, such as the defendant Birger Seland, who participates in the commission of a tort by the corporation is personally liable therefor (see, Clark v. Pine Hill Homes, 112 A.D.2d 755; Matter of State of New York v. Daro Chartours, 72 A.D.2d 872, 873; Cleland v. Fort Ticonderoga Assn., 71 A.D.2d 740; Bailey v. Baker's Air Force Gas Corp., 50 A.D.2d 129, lv denied 39 N.Y.2d 708; La Lumia v. Schwartz, 23 A.D.2d 668). In the case at bar, the defendant Birger Seland personally supervised and participated in the construction work which the plaintiffs allege was performed negligently and gave rise to the plaintiff Robert Bellinzoni's injuries.
The plaintiffs attempted to demonstrate the defendant Birger Seland's negligence through the testimony of a professional engineer who had extensive experience in the design and construction of wood structures and had for several years been involved in the supervision of carpentry work. The trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting this witness from testifying as an expert and giving his opinion as to the competence of the defendant Birger Seland's workmanship (see, Tarlowe v Metropolitan Ski Slopes, 28 N.Y.2d 410; Meiselman v. Crown Hgts. Hosp., 285 N.Y. 389, 398-399; Miller v. Food Fair Stores, 63 A.D.2d 766). Moreover, although there had been minor alterations to the structure from which the plaintiff Robert Bellinzoni fell between the time of the accident and the expert's inspection, none of these changes was sufficient to prevent the expert from becoming familiar with and testifying with regard to the condition of this mezzanine at the time of the accident and the method of construction (cf. Feldsberg v. Nitschke, 49 N.Y.2d 636, 646).
Finally, since the defendant Birger Seland conceded that he had formulated the specifications for the structure in question, at the retrial of this matter the plaintiffs' expert should be permitted to testify as to his opinion of the adequacy of these specifications.
The plaintiffs' remaining contention has been examined and found to be without merit. Rubin, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.