From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coello v. Progressive Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 22, 2004
6 A.D.3d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2569N.

Decided April 22, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George Salerno, J.), entered May 14, 2003, which, in an action by plaintiff insured against defendant automobile insurer to recover the value of an automobile allegedly stolen from plaintiff and subsequently recovered by the police in a total-loss condition, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's answer to the extent of precluding the person who examined plaintiff's vehicle on the law and the facts, from testifying at trial unless produced by defendant for deposition within 30 days, unanimously modified, on the law, to limit the deposition of said witness to that of a fact witness and, except as thus modified, affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Bruno, Gerbino Soriano, LLP, Melville (Charles W. Benton of counsel), for appellant.

Fotopoulos, Rosenblatt Green, Esqs., New York (Constantine D. Fotopoulos of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams, Gonzalez, JJ.


Plaintiff seeks the deposition of a forensics engineer who, according to defendant's expert disclosure statement, is expected to testify that he inspected the subject automobile and determined that its ignition system was intact and undamaged, and that the automobile therefore could only have been driven by its own ignition keys. Defendant was properly directed to produce this expert since he appears to be the only person ever to examine the automobile after its recovery and thus the only witness with personal knowledge of its condition at the relevant time ( see Flex-O-Vit USA, Inc. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 281 A.D.2d 980). The testimony of the expert should, however, be limited to his factual observations regarding the condition of the automobile. There are no special circumstances that justify deposing him as to his expert opinion, i.e., his conclusions ( see id.). We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Coello v. Progressive Ins. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 22, 2004
6 A.D.3d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Coello v. Progressive Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:OSWALDO COELLO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 22, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 282 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 706

Citing Cases

Wong v. 200 E. Tenants Corp.

Special circumstances require a showing of substantial need and the inability without undue hardship to…

Rasso v. Avon Prods.

The Appellate Division, First Department, has held that special circumstances exist where the…