## Facts

- Eva Hoffman, a tenant, sued her landlord, building owners, and managing agent for negligent failure to secure an apartment building.
- Hoffman alleged an intruder gained unauthorized access to the building and assaulted her, causing physical injuries and emotional distress.
- During discovery, defendants demanded the names and addresses of witnesses concerning: (a) the occurrence; (b) acts, omissions, or conditions allegedly causing it; (c) notice to defendants of those conditions; and (d) the nature and duration of the conditions.
- Hoffman stated she knew of no eyewitnesses to the assault or to any doorman admitting the assailant, and agreed to supplement if such witnesses were found.
- Hoffman refused to provide identities of witnesses related to conditions, notice, and duration, arguing defendants were only entitled to eyewitness identities and that the request improperly sought a trial witness list.
- Defendants moved to compel; the trial court denied the motion.
- Defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. In a negligence action, does discovery permit disclosure of the names and addresses of non-eyewitnesses who can testify about the allegedly defective condition and defendants’ notice of that condition?

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the order denying the motion to compel.
- The court held defendants were entitled to the names and addresses of potential witnesses with knowledge of the premises condition and notice issues, not merely eyewitnesses to the assault.
- The court directed plaintiff to provide the requested names and addresses within a specified time.

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 3101 requires full disclosure of matter “material and necessary” to prosecuting or defending an action.
- In negligence litigation, the identities of non-eyewitness witnesses with relevant factual knowledge—including knowledge bearing on a defendant’s notice and the condition at issue—are discoverable.
- The identity of fact witnesses is generally not protected as attorney work product or trial-preparation material merely because counsel located or interviewed them or may call them at trial.
- Premises-liability claims commonly turn on proof of condition and notice; discovery may reach witnesses who can provide such proof.

## Conclusion

The court held that New York’s liberal disclosure rules require production of names and addresses of non-eyewitness fact witnesses who can testify about the premises condition and defendants’ notice, and it ordered plaintiff to provide that information after the trial court denied defendants’ motion to compel.


Hoffman v. Ro-San Manor, 73 A.D.2d 207, 425 N.Y.S.2d 619 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1980)