You are here: / / DEFENDANT CARPET AND FLOORING SUBCONTRACTOR’S REQUEST TO INSPECT...
, ,

DEFENDANT CARPET AND FLOORING SUBCONTRACTOR’S REQUEST TO INSPECT THE AREA OF THE FLOOR WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY STEPPED INTO AN UNGUARDED VENT HOLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; ALTHOUGH THE VENT COVER HAD BEEN REPLACED, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THE INSPECTION WOULD BE FRUITLESS, OR THAT THE INSPECTION WOULD CAUSE UNREASONABLE ANNOYANCE, EXPENSE, EMBARRASSMENT OR OTHER PREJUDICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant carpet and flooring subcontractor’s (S&’s) request to inspect the area of the building where plaintiff stepped into a vent hole from which a cover had been dislodged should not have been denied. Although the vent cover had been replaced, it could not be said for certain that an inspection would be fruitless:

CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.” The Court of Appeals has directed that the phrase “material and necessary” in this statute should be “interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity” … . Under this standard, S&F is entitled to inspect the site of the incident giving rise to plaintiff’s allegedly serious injuries.

While the replacement of the … cover might reduce the likelihood that a site inspection will produce evidence useful to S&S’s defense, it does not make it certain that an inspection will be useless. … It is for S&F, not its adversary, to determine whether the inspection of the site of the accident is sufficiently likely to produce relevant information to be worth S&F’s time and effort. … . …

… [A] court’s power to limit otherwise proper use of a disclosure device should be exercised only for the purpose of avoiding “unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice.”

We fail to see how an inspection of the site of the accident giving rise to this lawsuit would impose on plaintiff, or on anyone else, any of the burdens enumerated by CPLR 3103(a) to an “unreasonable” extent. Balsamello v Structure Tone, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 02251, First Dept 4-25-24

Practice Point: An inspection by defendant of the area where plaintiff was injured should be allowed absent unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage or other prejudice.

 

You might also like
SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A FALL FROM AN UNSECURED LADDER, IT DID NOT MATTER WHETHER PLAINTIFF LOST HIS BALANCE BEFORE OF AFTER THE LADDER WOBBLED (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Real Estate Broker “Launched an Instrument of Harm” In an Apartment Being Shown to Plaintiff; Evidence of Custom Not Enough to Shift the Burden of Proof in Premises Liability Action
SENTENCING JUDGE’S MISINFORMATION ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PRISON SENTENCE THE JUVENILE OFFENDER COULD RECEIVE IF SHE FAILED TO MEET THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY A PLEA AGREEMENT RENDERED THE PLEA INVOLUNTARY, THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE RECORD-KEEPING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR NYC PAWNBROKERS DO NOT VIOLATE THE UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROHIBITION IN THE NYS CONSTITUTION.
TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT TOW TRUCK WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Labor Law 240 (1) Concerns Only Whether Proper Safety Equipment Was Provided—Comparative Negligence Is Not Relevant
THE LANDOWNER AND THE TENANT TAXI COMPANY HAD THE SAME PRINCIPAL, A HOSE WAS USED BY INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS TO WASH THE TAXIS, PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY SLIPPED ON THE WATER FROM THE HOSE WHICH FROZE, THE LANDOWNER DID NOT ESTABLISH IT WAS AN OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD, THE LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARD RAILS ENTITLED PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A NOTICE OF VIOLATION FROM THE CITY TO THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING... ALLOWING EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS UNDER MOLINEUX, AND ALLOWING...