Opinion
July 5, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff's use of the notice to admit (CPLR 3123) as a substitute for existing discovery devices was palpably improper and the Supreme Court therefore neither erred nor improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' motion to vacate (see, Taylor v. Blair, 116 A.D.2d 204; Batchie v. Travelers Ins. Co., 110 A.D.2d 864; Berg v. Flower Fifth Ave. Hosp., 102 A.D.2d 760). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.