Justice Arlene Bluth

 

Read Full-Text Decision

Koksal moved to strike defendants’ answers, or alternatively, their notices of intention, including photographs and surveillance videos of her, in this action arising from an alleged motor vehicle accident. She argued Petrocelli Electric and New York City refused to respond to her demand for information of their notices. Koksal sought information on photographs attached to defendants’ notices, claiming CPLR 3101(i) entitled her to full disclosure of information on the pictures, including date and time they were taken. The court found Koksal was not entitled to the information she sought, but may exercise her right to a voir dire of the witness called to lay a foundation for admission of the photos into evidence. It noted it would apply the same standard for the videos. Yet, Koksal alleged some videos depicted her walking within the Civil Court, insisting this violated Rule 29.1 of the Rules of the Chief Judge, while the city argued the rule did not prohibit videotaping of a stairwell inside the courthouse. The court disagreed noting while the rule did not specifically mention stairwell, same was in the courthouse, and defendants did not provide evidence they obtained permission before taking the video, thus, were precluded from using any parts of it showing Koksal in the courthouse.