Opinion
July 25, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs to Silk, and that branch of Silk's motion which was for a deposition of Republic by a witness with personal knowledge of Republic's disclaimer of insurance coverage as to Holm is granted.
The witness produced by Republic to be deposed did not possess the necessary personal knowledge of the facts underlying the disclaimer of coverage by Republic. Since the information provided by the witness proved inadequate, Silk should have been granted the opportunity to conduct a deposition of Republic by a witness possessing sufficient knowledge of the relevant circumstances (see, Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 90 A.D.2d 787; Rosner v. Maimonides Hosp., 89 A.D.2d 847; Besen v. C.P.L. Yacht Sales, 34 A.D.2d 789). Kunzeman, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.