Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff has failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see, CPLR 3212 [b]) as to whether the defendant was responsible for maintaining the site of the accident and thus as to whether the alleged negligence on the part of the defendant was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries.
Furthermore, since there does not exist a substantial likelihood that any of the defendant's employees possess information which is material and necessary to the prosecution of the plaintiffs case, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to compel the defendant to produce an additional witness ( see, Zollner v City of New York, 204 AD2d 626).