Opinion
June 13, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morton, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We find no basis for granting Honda's motion. The discovery sought is of matter prepared for litigation which is not discoverable except under circumstances where such discovery is needed to allow an adverse party to determine if or how the subject was altered (Perfido v Messina, 125 A.D.2d 654). Here, although Honda was provided with photographs of the motorcycle showing the areas tested by the plaintiffs' expert, it has failed to explain what portions of the motorcycle were altered or why the investigation sought is necessary. Thus, its application for disclosure is without merit (see, Perfido v Messina, supra). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.