Appellants' contention that respondents' spoliation of evidence warrants dismissal of respondents' claims against them was properly rejected at this juncture. Appellants may well be able to obtain evidence necessary to prove an alteration from the original design, and otherwise establish their defense, from the inspection report and deposition of plaintiff's expert, who was given an opportunity to inspect the press before the action was commenced, and from their own blueprints and designs ( cf., Kirkland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 236 A.D.2d 170, 175; compare, Squitieri v. City of New York, 248 A.D.2d 201, 203-204). In addition, this motion was made 15 months after the note of issue and statement of readiness were filed.
Concur — Rubin, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.