DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well established that a corporation has the right in the first instance to determine which of its representatives will appear for an examination before trial ( see, Barone v. Great Atlantic Pacific Tea Co., 260 A.D.2d 417; Mercado v. Alexander 227 A.D.2d 391; Defina v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 217 A.D.2d 681, 682). Here, the defendant Door Control, Inc., produced its president who testified with respect to the operation, maintenance, and repair of the automatic sliding door by which the plaintiff Matilda Pisano was allegedly injured. The plaintiffs failed to show that this witness had insufficient knowledge or was otherwise inadequate ( see, Saxe v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 751; Carter v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 225 A.D.2d 512; Perez v. City of White Plains, 222 A.D.2d 663). Moreover, even if the proposed witness possesses additional information regarding subsequent repairs, such evidence is not discoverable or admissible in this negligence case ( see, Watson v. FHE Sers., 257 A.D.2d 618; Cleland v. 60-02 Woodside Corp., 221 A.D.2d 307, 308; Niemann v. Luca, 214 A.D.2d 658).
O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.