| Lea v New York City Tr. Auth. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09655 [57 AD3d 269] |
| December 9, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Charlene Lea, Respondent, v New York City TransitAuthority, Appellant. |
—[*1] Godosky & Gentile, P.C., New York (William A. Gentile of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Donna M. Mills, J.), entered November 2, 2007,which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a slip and fall on a staircase maintained bydefendant New York City Transit Authority, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion to strikedefendant's answer unless defendant "complie[d] with the outstanding discovery demands"within 30 days, unanimously modified, on the facts, to grant the motion to strike unlessdefendant produces (1) its station supervisor's log, or an affidavit from someone with knowledgethat such log could not be found after a diligent search, and (2) its station supervisor fordeposition, both within 60 days after issuance of this order, and otherwise affirmed, withoutcosts.
On appeal, defendant does not challenge the demands for its station supervisor's log anddeposition. Concerning the demands that do remain in issue on appeal, they are all palpablyimproper (see Haller v North Riverside Partners, 189 AD2d 615, 616 [1993], citingAlaten Co. v Solil Mgt. Corp., 181 AD2d 466 [1992]; cf. Sonsini v Memorial Hosp.for Cancer & Diseases, 262 AD2d 185, 186-187 [1999]), and thus production thereof shouldnot be compelled despite defendant's failure to timely object thereto under CPLR 3122 (seeHaller; Perez v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 271 AD2d 251 [2000]).Concur—Tom, J.P., Gonzalez, Nardelli, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.