Opinion
July 2, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the provision thereof directing the defendant to provide evidence to the plaintiff of subsequent accidents is deleted, and the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's notice of discovery and inspection is granted in its entirety.
While the plaintiff alleged in her verified complaint that she sustained injuries after falling in one of the defendant's stores due to the presence of a "dangerous condition", she identified this dangerous condition in her verified bill of particulars solely as a "[s]mashed strawberry negligently, carelessly and recklessly allowed to be left on [the] aisle floor". Discovery of evidence of subsequent similar accidents, while material in cases where a defect is alleged in the design or creation of a product or structure (see, e.g., Brown v. Daisy Mfg. Co., 129 A.D.2d 995; Alexson Mechanical Contr. v. Honeywell, Inc., 101 A.D.2d 796; Klatz v. Armor Elevator Co., 93 A.D.2d 633; Carnibucci v. Marlin Firearms Co., 51 A.D.2d 1067), is irrelevant and inappropriate in cases such as the one before us where no inherent defect is alleged. Accordingly, the defendant's motion should have been granted in its entirety. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.