|Dabo v One Hudson Yards Owner, LLC|
|2019 NY Slip Op 07751 [176 AD3d 631]|
|October 29, 2019|
|Appellate Division, First Department|
|Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.|
| Birama Dabo, Respondent,|
One Hudson Yards Owner, LLC, et al., Appellants.
Cornell Grace, P.C., New York (Porsha Johnson of counsel), for appellants.
Sullivan Papain Block McGrath & Cannavo, P.C., New York (Brian J. Shoot of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul A. Goetz, J.), entered on or about October 12, 2018, which denied defendants' motion for a protective order to prevent disclosure of their insurer's accident investigation report, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
Documents in an insurer's claim file, including an accident investigation report, that were prepared for litigation against its insured are immune from disclosure (see CPLR 3101 [d] ; Recant v Harwood, 222 AD2d 372, 373-374 [1st Dept 1995]). Although documents in a first-party insurance action prepared in an insurer's ordinary course of business in investigating whether to accept or reject coverage are discoverable (see CPLR 3101 [g]; Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v American Home Assur. Co., 23 AD3d 190, 191 ), there is no indication that such documents are being protected here. In the absence of any demonstration of hardship by plaintiff, the insurer's accident investigation report remains privileged (see Veltre v Rainbow Convenience Store, Inc., 146 AD3d 416 [1st Dept 2017]). Concur—Renwick, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Mazzarelli, Webber, Oing, JJ.