Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Evidence of subsequent repairs and remedial measures is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case unless there is an issue of maintenance or control (see, Niemann v Luca, 214 A.D.2d 658; Cacciolo v Port Auth., 186 A.D.2d 528; Klatz v Armor El. Co., 93 A.D.2d 633). In their appellate brief, the defendants admit control of the subject premises. Accordingly, the information which the plaintiffs sought regarding repair work performed on the stairway and/or stoop subsequent to the accident was not material or relevant to prosecuting the action (see, CPLR 3101) and the failure on the part of the defendants to provide the plaintiffs with this information did not warrant the issuance of an order of preclusion regarding the condition of the stairway and/or stoop at the time of the accident. Balletta, J.P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.