TEJEDA v. 116 WEST CORP.

We reject defendants' claim that the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding them responsible for all of plaintiff's damages rather than allowing the jury to decide their share of the damages based on the uncontested periods of time that they respectively owned the building in which plaintiff's injuries were sustained. There is no evidence to support a nonspeculative apportionment on this basis (see, La Fountaine v Franzese, 282 A.D.2d 935, 938; cf., Ravo v Rogatnick, 70 N.Y.2d 305, 312). We have considered defendants' other arguments, including that their cross-examination of plaintiff's expert was unfairly curtailed, and find them unavailing.