Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to compel the defendant to disclose records regarding repairs made to the subject elevator subsequent to the date of the accident at issue is denied.
The Supreme Court erred in ordering the defendant to disclose records of repairs made to the elevator in which the plaintiff was allegedly injured, subsequent to the date of the subject accident. It is well settled that "[e]vidence of subsequent repairs * * * is not discoverable or admissible in a negligence case unless there is an issue of maintenance or control" ( Cleland v. 60-02 Woodside Corp., 221 A.D.2d 307, 308; see, Niemann v. Luca, 214 A.D.2d 658; Klatz v. Armor El. Co., 93 A.D.2d 633). In the instant case, there is no issue as to the maintenance and control of the elevator at issue.
Miller, J.P., Thompson, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.