Opinion
8563N Index 161539/15
02-28-2019
1591 SECOND AVENUE LLC, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Smith, Mazure, Director, Wilkins, Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York (Marcia K. Raicus of counsel), for appellants. Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP, New York (Richard J. Lambert of counsel), for respondents.
Smith, Mazure, Director, Wilkins, Young & Yagerman, P.C., New York (Marcia K. Raicus of counsel), for appellants.
Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP, New York (Richard J. Lambert of counsel), for respondents.
Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Oing, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered on or about August 28, 2017, which denied defendants' motion to compel discovery and for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the requested materials were prepared in anticipation of litigation (see CPLR 3101[d][2] ), or in failing to conduct an in camera inspection of the subject materials. Furthermore, given that defendants failed to contest that their experts inspected the allegedly damaged properties, they failed to show a substantial need for the report and the materials incorporated into it that was prepared by plaintiffs' experts, and that they would be unable to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship (see id.; see also Gama Aviation Inc. v. Sandton Capital Partners, L.P., 99 A.D.3d 423, 424, 951 N.Y.S.2d 519 [1st Dept. 2012] ).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.