Opinion
April 15, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is granted upon the condition that the defendants be permitted to have a representative present when the inspection and testing of the automobile battery is conducted and to examine, photograph, and videotape the battery before and after each stage of testing.
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion for destructive testing of the battery which allegedly exploded as the injured plaintiff attempted to jump-start his car. The plaintiffs established that destructive testing is the only method by which they may obtain the information they seek ( see, Castro v. Alden Leeds, Inc., 116 A.D.2d 549; Di Piano v. Yamaha Motor Corp., 106 A.D.2d 367). However, to adequately safeguard the defendants' rights, and to enable the jury to ascertain the original condition of the battery, the defendants should be permitted to have a representative present when the inspection and testing is conducted ( see, Dina v. Lutheran Med. Ctr., 156 A.D.2d 421), and to examine, photograph, and videotape the battery before and after each stage of testing ( see, e.g., Di Giovanni v. Pepsico, Inc., 120 A.D.2d 413). Balletta, J.P., Sullivan, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.