DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A municipality, in the first instance, has the right to determine which of its officers or employees with knowledge of the facts may appear for an examination before trial (see D S Realty Dev. v. Town of Huntington, 295 A.D.2d 306, 307). The plaintiff may demand the production of additional witnesses upon a showing, among other things, that the representative already deposed had insufficient knowledge, or was otherwise inadequate (see Alcamo v. City of New York, 253 A.D.2d 408, 409; Zollner v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 626, 627; Ramos v. New York City Hous. Auth., 202 A.D.2d 563). The defendant New York City Police Department complied, albeit tardily, with that portion of the preliminary conference order which directed the taking of depositions by producing the arresting officer for an examination before trial. The plaintiff failed to show that the additional deposition of the undercover officer was necessary (cf. Alcamo v. City of New York, supra; Zollner v. City of New York, supra; Ramos v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra).
ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.