| Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 07752 [66 AD3d 600] |
| October 29, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation. Jamie Ames,Respondent, v Kentile Floors Inc., Appellant. |
—[*1]
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered June 24, 2009,which denied defendant's motion for a protective order and confirmed the December 3, 2008ruling of the Special Master regarding production of certain materials associated with testsconducted by defendant's withdrawn expert in the matter entitled Paul Oswald v A.O. SmithWater Products et al. (index No. 111227/01), unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In this negligence and strict products liability action in the New York City AsbestosLitigation, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the production of certain tiles, boxes,videos and photographs (see ThoseCertain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc., 11 NY3d 843, 845[2008]). Although the Oswald case had been settled, the appeal with respect thereto hadbeen withdrawn and its expert had been withdrawn, there remained other ongoing Kentileasbestos litigation. Thus, the motion court had full authority, under the controlling casemanagement order, to issue its discovery order pertaining to ongoing cases involving Kentile,including this case.
Furthermore, plaintiff demonstrated the "special circumstances" or "undue hardship"necessary to support an entitlement to expert disclosure beyond the statutorily required summaryof the expert's opinions (see CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]; [2]; cf. Martinez v KSMHolding, 294 AD2d 111 [2002]). The items at issue, tiles sold prior to 1986, the boxes inwhich they were stored, and photographs and videos thereof, could not be obtained on the openmarket, and the withdrawal of defendant's expert did not affect the disclosure requirement as theitems were not work-product prepared in anticipation of litigation.[*2]
We have considered defendant's remaining arguments,including that the motion court ignored its motion for a protective order, and find themunavailing. Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Saxe, Catterson, McGuire and Acosta, JJ.