Opinion
November 16, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, Burke, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Davis, JJ.
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: In this personal injury action, Supreme Court granted defendants' request for a protective order vacating item 9 of plaintiff's combined demands for discovery. That was error.
Plaintiff's request sought: "All written complaints and accident reports of those persons who claim their shoes were caught in the joint space and/or substance(s)/filler therein, whether said claim resulted in bodily injury or property damage, from the date of construction up until the date of the accident." We conclude that this demand constituted a request for prior similar accidents and was thus proper (see, Klatz v. Armor Elevator Co., 93 A.D.2d 633, 637-638). There is no merit to defendants' argument that the request was overly broad (see, Sullivan v. New York City Tr. Auth., 109 A.D.2d 879, 880; Barnes v. Barnes, 96 A.D.2d 894; Palmieri v. Kilcourse, 91 A.D.2d 657). Moreover, reports of property damage claims were properly demanded because such documents are material and relevant in establishing the existence of a dangerous condition and defendants' notice thereof (see, Klatz v. Armor Elevator Co., supra). Finally, plaintiff need not resort to other discovery devices before resorting to discovery pursuant to CPLR 3120 (see, Brady v. Wyeth Labs., 106 A.D.2d 795, 796).