Opinion
October 15, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Jiudice, J.).
Order dated June 3, 1985 affirmed, insofar as reviewed.
Defendants are awarded one bill of costs. The matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for an immediate trial. Plaintiff is granted a trial preference. Either plaintiff or defendants may file a note of issue within 10 days after service by plaintiff upon defendants of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry.
Special Term properly denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction which would have the effect of enforcing the restrictive covenant in the employment contract which defendant Irwin executed (see, Sybron Corp. v Wetzel, 61 A.D.2d 697, mod on other grounds 46 N.Y.2d 197). Plaintiff has not sustained the burden of proving the likelihood of its ultimate success on the merits, that it would sustain irreparable injury absent the granting of the preliminary injunction and that the motion should be granted on the balancing of the equities (see, e.g., Albini v Solork Assoc., 37 A.D.2d 835; cf. Kraemer v T.C.R. Servs., 93 A.D.2d 808).
It is well settled that CPLR 3120 (a) (1) (i) requires that documents sought to be discovered be specifically designated and specified with reasonable particularity in the notice. The use of the descriptions "any", "all" or "any and all" renders the notice for discovery and inspection improper (Jonassen v A.M.F., Inc., 104 A.D.2d 484, 485; Ganin v Janow, 86 A.D.2d 857). Accordingly, as plaintiff's notice for discovery and inspection demands production of "all" documents within broad categories, Special Term correctly vacated plaintiff's notice.
We have reviewed plaintiff's other contention and find it to be without merit. O'Connor, J.P., Niehoff, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.