| Sigelakis v Washington Group, LLC |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10138 [46 AD3d 800] |
| December 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| George Sigelakis, Respondent, v Washington Group, LLC,Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1]
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Washington Group, LLC,appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.), dated October 5,2006, which, after an in camera inspection, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion whichwas to compel disclosure of a three-page handwritten statement of its employee.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Accident reports made in the regular course of business, by uninsured or self-insured entities,are generally not privileged from disclosure (see James v Metro N. Commuter R.R., 166AD2d 266, 268 [1990]), so long as they are not prepared for the sole purpose of litigation (seeMcKie v Taylor, 146 AD2d 921 [1989]; Crazytown Furniture v Brooklyn Union GasCo., 145 AD2d 402 [1988]). Moreover, when statements are given to a liability insurer'sclaims department as part of an internal investigation or for internal business purposes, as well asfor defense purposes, they are not immune from discovery as material prepared solely inanticipation of litigation (see Meiliken v Hart, 261 AD2d 370 [1999]; Agovino vTaco Bell 5083, 225 AD2d 569, 571 [1996]; Wylie v Consolidated Rail Corp., 198AD2d 884 [1993]). The burden of proving that a statement is privileged as material preparedsolely in anticipation of litigation or trial is on the party opposing discovery (see Agovino vTaco Bell 5083, 225 AD2d at 571; Crazytown Furniture v Brooklyn Union Gas Co.,145 AD2d at 402; Matos v Akram & Jamal Meat Corp., 99 AD2d 527 [1984]).
In this case, the appellant refused to provide the plaintiff with a three-page handwrittenstatement given by its employee to its insurer's claims adjuster on the ground that it was preparedin anticipation of litigation (see CPLR 3101 [d] [2]). The conclusory assertions contained[*2]in the affirmation of the appellant's attorney failed todemonstrate that the statement was not prepared in the regular course of business, but wasprepared solely in anticipation of litigation (see Meiliken v Hart, 261 AD2d 370 [1999];Galyas v Giordano, 241 AD2d 539 [1997]; Agovino v Taco Bell 5083, 225AD2d 569, 570 [1996]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motionto compel disclosure, and properly directed the appellant to disclose the handwritten statement tothe plaintiff. Crane, J.P., Ritter, Fisher, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.