Sabatini & Associates, New York (Steve S. Efron of counsel), for appellant.

Varvaro, Cotter & Bender, White Plains (Rose M. Cotter of counsel), for Tishman Speyer Properties, LP and another, respondents.

Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered on or about September 7, 2021, which denied defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation's (Schindler) motions to compel additional discovery from defendants Tishman Speyer Properties, LP and Christie's, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court properly denied Schindler's motions to compel additional discovery. All relevant and existing evidence as to the videotape had been previously provided by Tishman and Christie's, as Christie's response to Schindler's post-deposition demands provided the additional information that could properly be obtained. Schindler is also not entitled to depose Christie's current risk manager Baldwin, as Schindler received any nonprivileged insurance information in Christie's responses to Schindler's February 18, 2016 document demand and amended notice to admit.

Moreover, an insured's statement to a liability insurer is conditionally privileged as material prepared in contemplation of litigation, despite arguments that the information is sought for a different purpose (see Recant v Harwood, 222 AD2d 372, 374 [1st Dept 1995]). Pre-litigation communications between an insurer and its insured are also conditionally privileged (id.). Here, Schindler's request for deposition testimony as to communications between Tishman and Christie's and their insurers was improper because the information is confidential (see Grotallio v Soft Drink Leasing Corp., 97 AD2d 383, 383 [1st Dept 1983] ["(t)he contents of an insurer's claim file which have been prepared for litigation against its insured are immune from disclosure"]). Concur—Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Oing, Singh, Scarpulla, Pitt-Burke, JJ.