Mayer v. 486 Associates, Inc.Mayer v. 486 Associates, Inc.
Ordered that on the Court‘s own motion, the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and, upon reargument, so much of the order dated May 10, 2005, as, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiff‘s motion which was, in effect, to compel Lancelot Webster to answer certain deposition questions is vacated, and that branch of the plaintiff‘s motion is granted.
The plaintiff should have been permitted to conduct discovery with respect to a prior sexual assault that occurred at the building located at 231 Ocean Avenue because the circumstances surrounding that incident may be relevant to the foreseeability of the sexual assault of the plaintiff at the subject building (see Mayer v 486 Assoc., 35 AD3d 404 [2006] [decided herewith];
Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Covello, JJ., concur.