Opinion
October 27, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified by adding a provision that any expenses incurred by the defendants as incident to the plaintiff having a qualified representative present at any inspection to be had at the defendants' facility shall be a taxable disbursement by the defendants if they are ultimately successful in the action. As so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.
Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that Special Term abused its discretion in conditioning the defendants' inspection of the plaintiff's vehicle at their facility upon the defendants' assumption of the plaintiff's reasonable expenses of having a qualified representative of the plaintiff present at the inspection. It would appear that the challenged direction was imposed to prevent unreasonable annoyance, expense and prejudice to the plaintiff at this stage of the proceedings (CPLR 3103 [a]). However, such expenses are to be a taxable disbursement by the defendants if they are ultimately successful in the action (see, CPLR 8301 [a]; cf. Balzac v Jerome, 104 A.D.2d 1015, appeal dismissed 64 N.Y.2d 884; Oneto v Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp., 65 A.D.2d 520). We note that under the order appealed from the defendants may inspect the subject vehicle at the plaintiff's premises without any conditions, if they be so advised. Thompson, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.