Opinion
December 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
Plaintiffs herein have commenced supplementary proceedings against the movant on the ground that it holds assets of defendant Joseph M. Aronow, a judgment debtor pursuant to a judgment affirmed by this Court ( 164 A.D.2d 737, stay denied 78 N.Y.2d 952).
A protective order pursuant to CPLR 5240 is a matter of the IAS court's broad discretion (Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 N.Y.2d 515, 519), and should be issued with caution (Reynders v Reynders, 155 A.D.2d 987). Here, the restraining notice on the movant law firm is based on assets in which one of the judgment defendants, a shareholder of the professional corporation, has a direct interest (see, Ray v Jama Prods., 74 A.D.2d 845, lv denied 49 N.Y.2d 709). The judicial subpoenas are not overly broad (cf., Andrew F. Capoccia, P.C. v Spiro, 88 A.D.2d 1100), nor are they intended primarily as harassment. (Cf., Seyfarth v Bi-County Elec. Corp., 73 Misc.2d 363.)
Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in the IAS court's denial of the protective order (see, Foremost Ins. Co. v Facultative Group, 80 A.D.2d 598).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.