Opinion
1632N
September 24, 2002.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about March 4, 2002, which partially denied appellants' motion to quash petitioner-respondent's subpoena duces tecum, and denied their motion for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3102(e), unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of limiting the scope of appellants' deposition to the issues raised in item 1 of respondent's subpoena, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
SOL Z. ROSEN, for petitioner-respondent.
DAVID A. KAMINSKY, for respondents-appellants.
Before: Williams, P.J., Tom, Rosenberger, Friedman, JJ.
In addition to quashing most of the subpoena duces tecum served on appellants on the ground that most of the subpoena's document requests were overbroad, burdensome and oppressive, seeking material well beyond the legitimate scope of petitioner-respondent's need in defending a Maryland divorce action, the IAS court should have granted appellants a protective order limiting the scope of their deposition testimony to the issues raised in Item (1) of the subpoena, so that they will be questioned only as to whether respondent's wife received monies and/or any other property from them between January 1, 1999 to the present and, if so, to what extent (cf. Matter of Ayliffe v. Canadian Universal Ins. Co., 166 A.D.2d 223, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 714).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.