Bokkes

INTRODUCTION

Tommy Bokkes and his daughter, Adeline, appeal from a defense judgment entered after a jury trial. Appellants alleged respondents, Peter Plotkin, Isaac Khokher, and Raymond Pablo, were responsible for flooding in a commercial building Bokkes rented from Plotkin. Pablo owned a company that managed Plotkin’s properties, and Khokher was a company employee who collected the rent. It was alleged that all three knew about a leaky pipe that ultimately burst, causing the flood, but did nothing about it. The flood allegedly caused mold growth in the building, which in turn caused appellants to develop severe allergic reactions. The flood also was alleged to have damaged property used in the Mercedes automobile service facility Bokkes operated out of the rented premises. The defendants made a series of in limine motions, four of which are at issue in this appeal. The most important ones sought to exclude a professionally prepared mold report and to exclude plaintiffs’ medical expert. The court granted both motions. As a result, just before trial the case ceased to be a personal injury lawsuit and became one primarily for property damage and fraud. By special verdict, the jury…