Opinion
2003-03868, 2003-08895.
Decided May 10, 2004.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), dated April 10, 2003, as denied their motion to direct the defendant to produce an additional witness for deposition, and (2) an order of the same court dated September 12, 2003, as denied that branch of their subsequent motion which was, in effect, for leave to renew.
Stock Carr, Mineola, N.Y. (Thomas J. Stock of counsel), for appellants.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Alan G. Krams of counsel; Lindsey Eldred on the brief), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
A municipality, in the first instance, has the right to determine which of its officers or employees with knowledge of the facts may appear for an examination before trial ( see Del Rosa v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 786; D S Realty Dev. v. Town of Huntington, 295 A.D.2d 306, 307). The plaintiff may demand the production of additional witnesses, upon a showing, among other things, that the representative already deposed had insufficient knowledge or was otherwise inadequate ( see Del Rosa v. City of New York, supra; Zollner v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 626, 627). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the deposition of an additional witness was necessary in this case.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, TOWNES, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.