Opinion
Submitted October 24, 2001.
November 13, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated January 26, 2001, which granted the motion of the defendant Linda Clipper pursuant to CPLR 3103 for a protective order against a notice for discovery and inspection and barring her further deposition.
Fink Platz, New York, N.Y. (Steven M. Fink and The Breakstone Law Firm, P.C. [Jay L.T. Breakstone] of counsel), for appellants.
Chesney Murphy, Baldwin, N.Y. (Robert F. Carlin II of counsel), for respondents.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is denied.
The Supreme Court improperly exercised its discretion in granting the motion of the defendant Linda Clipper for a protective order. Clipper failed to make an appropriate factual showing of "unreasonable annoyance, expense, embarrassment, disadvantage, or other prejudice" (CPLR 3103[a]; see, Willis v. Cassia, 255 A.D.2d 800, 801; State of New York v. General Elec. Co., 215 A.D.2d 928, 929; Brignola v. Pei-Fei Lee, M.D., P.C., 192 A.D.2d 1008, 1009). The records requested by the plaintiffs in their notice for discovery and inspection may be relevant on the issue of whether Clipper's vehicle was involved in the subject accident (see, Williams v. Hunt Transp. Servs., 162 A.D.2d 524). Furthermore, the examination before trial of Clipper, which was initially adjourned to be held before a judge, should continue until completion (see, Tardibuono v. County of Nassau, 181 A.D.2d 879, 881; Ferraro v. New York Tel. Co., 94 A.D.2d 784, 785; Freedco Prods. v. New York Tel. Co., 47 A.D.2d 654).
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.