From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Generali Ins. Co. v. Honeywell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 1993
194 A.D.2d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

June 17, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).


The IAS Court properly determined that no "special circumstances" or conditions existed pursuant to CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (iii) warranting the deposition of plaintiff's expert witness in connection with an explosion in the basement of the insured premises, where, as here, the material physical evidence, an allegedly defective gas valve manufactured by defendant Honeywell, which allegedly caused the explosion, had not been "lost or destroyed before the other side has had an opportunity to conduct its own expert inspection" (Rosario v. General Motors Corp., 148 A.D.2d 108, 109). On the contrary, here Honeywell, Inc. was afforded an extensive opportunity to inspect and test the allegedly faulty gas valve and had been granted access to several pre-litigation reports, prepared by Consolidated Edison and the plaintiff's expert witness as to the cause of the explosion.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Ross and Asch, JJ.


Summaries of

Generali Ins. Co. v. Honeywell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 17, 1993
194 A.D.2d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

Generali Ins. Co. v. Honeywell

Case Details

Full title:GENERALI INSURANCE COMPANY OF TRIESTE AND VENICE et al., Respondents, v…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jun 17, 1993

Citations

194 A.D.2d 442 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
599 N.Y.S.2d 254

Citing Cases

ESSA REALTY CORP. v. J. THOMAS REALTY CORP.

Defendant moves to quash the subpoenas for depositions of Pisano and Lieber, designated by defendant as its…

Russo v. Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

e motion of Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance Company and New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company…