
    Alfred Amato, Respondent, v. Jarka Corporation, Appellant.
   In an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff when pallettes on a Hi-Lo allegedly owned and operated by defendant struck him, defendant appeals from so much of an order as directs the production of certain documents pursuant to section 296 of the Civil Practice Act. Order modified on the law and the facts by striking item (c) from the fifth ordering paragraph and substituting therefor the following “ (a) any and all documents which will show who did the stevedoring work at the time of the accident, who owned and operated the Hi-Los, and who owned the pallettes in question, pursuant to Section 296 of the Civil Practice Act”. As so modified, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to respondent. The production of documents should have been limited in the manner indicated. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Schmidt, JJ., concur. 1  