Opinion
February 6, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).
Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and as an exercise of discretion, by adding thereto a provision directing the plaintiff to produce so much of his expert's report as contains factual data relating to the subject vehicle; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiff's time to produce the expert's report is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.
The defendant third-party plaintiff and the third-party defendant have demonstrated circumstances sufficient to warrant limited disclosure of the plaintiff's expert's report pursuant to the former provisions of CPLR 3101 (d), which govern this action (see, McKinstry v Werner Mach. Co., 133 A.D.2d 361; Stevens v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 117 A.D.2d 733; Anastasia v Barnes, 109 A.D.2d 769; Terwilliger v Leach Co., 88 A.D.2d 910; see also, Kellar v Vassar Bros. Hosp., 105 A.D.2d 691, 692; Morrison v Ellis, 91 A.D.2d 1172). However, we agree with the Supreme Court that, under the circumstances presented, a deposition of the plaintiff's expert is unwarranted (see, Calo v Ahearn, 135 A.D.2d 457, 458). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.