Lea v. New York City Transit Authority

On appeal, defendant does not challenge the demands for its station supervisor’s log and deposition. Concerning the demands that do remain in issue on appeal, they are all palpably improper (see Haller v North Riverside Partners, 189 AD2d 615, 616 [1993], citing Alaten Co. v Solil Mgt. Corp., 181 AD2d 466 [1992]; cf. Sonsini v Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Diseases, 262 AD2d 185, 186-187 [1999]), and thus production thereof should not be compelled despite defendant’s failure to timely object thereto under CPLR 3122 (see Haller; Perez v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 271 AD2d 251 [2000]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Gonzalez, Nardelli, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.