Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Tyrone L. MADISON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SPANCRETE MACHINE CORPORATION, Defendant.
Spancrete Machine Corporation, Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Old Castle Pre-Cast, Inc., f/k/a Spancrete Northeast, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant. (Appeal No. 1.).
In June 2000 representatives of plaintiff and defendant-third-party plaintiff (defendant) traveled to third-party defendant's plant to inspect equipment involved in plaintiff's accident, and allegedly were denied an opportunity to observe that equipment in operation. We agree with third-party defendant that Supreme Court abused its discretion in granting the motion of plaintiff and awarding plaintiff and defendant costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) associated with that failed inspection and in compelling third-party defendant to submit to an inspection of its equipment pursuant to CPLR 3120(a)(1)(ii) according to the protocol proposed by plaintiff and defendant. The demands made by plaintiff and defendant at the time of the inspection exceeded the scope of the parties' agreement with respect to that inspection, and thus the conduct of third-party defendant was not frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130 1.1(c). Further, the proposed protocol effectively requires third-party defendant to reenact the accident. CPLR 3120(a)(1)(ii) permits “entry upon designated land or other property in the possession, custody or control of [a] party * * * for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, sampling, testing, photographing or recording by motion pictures or otherwise the property or any specifically designated object or operation thereon.” It does not authorize discovery and inspection in the form of an accident reenactment (see, Sullivan v. New York City Tr. Auth., 109 A.D.2d 879, 880, 487 N.Y.S.2d 72; see also, Hyde v. Chrysler Corp., 150 A.D.2d 343, 540 N.Y.S.2d 868).
Plaintiff and defendant contend that third-party defendant waived compliance with CPLR 3120. Although third-party defendant may have waived compliance with the notice requirement of CPLR 3120, it did not consent to discovery beyond the scope authorized by the CPLR.
Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion denied and awards vacated.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 09, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)