Opinion
September 29, 1970
Order entered February 28, 1969, unanimously reversed on the law, the facts and in the exercise of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, the application for a protective order denied and the cross motion for discovery granted; such disclosure to take place within 10 days of the entry of this order, in accordance with the notice of discovery and inspection, or such other time and place as may be agreed upon between the attorneys. (See Rodriguez v. City of New York, 29 A.D.2d 962, app. dsmd. 26 N.Y.2d 833.) No good reason appears why there should not be full disclosure. The examination pursuant to section 50-h Gen. Mun. of the General Municipal Law is prescribed by statute. A transcript of such record has been furnished or is available upon request to the plaintiff's attorney (§ 50-h, subd. 3) and either party may read the transcript in evidence (subd. 4). As noted in Rodriguez v. City of New York ( supra) "It [the transcript] cannot properly be considered an attorney's work product or thing created by a party for litigation * * * as the examination was mandated by statute and conducted in the presence of the adversary's attorney."
Concur — Stevens, P.J., Eager, McGivern and Nunez, JJ.