Opinion
April 5, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O'Shaughnessy, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 13, 1993, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated December 14, 1990, is reversed, the defendants' motion for a protective order is denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith; and it is further,
Ordered that the appellants are awarded one bill of costs.
The injured plaintiff's sudden discovery that he was under surveillance constituted the type of "unusual or unanticipated circumstance" sufficient to warrant further pretrial proceedings, although he had filed a note of issue and certificate of readiness some four months earlier (see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Moon v Sheraton Corp., 110 A.D.2d 509; see generally, Di Maria v Coordinated Ranches, 114 A.D.2d 397). The Supreme Court should fashion an appropriate schedule for the disclosure of any surveillance tapes or films in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals in DiMichel v South Buffalo Ry. Co. ( 80 N.Y.2d 184) and the decision of this Court in Kane v HerPet Refrig. ( 181 A.D.2d 257). Balletta, J.P., Eiber, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.