Opinion
November 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs, and the appellants' time to answer the modified interrogatories is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendants' respective motions for protective orders were untimely (see, CPLR 3133 [a]). We further agree with the Supreme Court that, except for those items stricken, the plaintiff's interrogatories were not "palpably improper" (see, Handy v Geften Realty, 129 A.D.2d 556). Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court erred in failing to grant the defendants' respective motions in their entireties (see, Handy v Geften Realty, 129 A.D.2d 556). The interrogatories submitted by the plaintiff are unduly broad and oppressive and are palpably improper. They demand extensive amounts of irrelevant information, call for opinions and interpretations, and seek material not only irrelevant to the causes of action alleged, but also information which cannot conceivably lead to relevant evidence (see, Vancek v International Dynetics Corp., 78 A.D.2d 842; see also, Manzo v Westchester Rockland Newspapers, 106 A.D.2d 492). Under the circumstances of this case, the appropriate remedy is a vacatur of the entire interrogatories rather than any attempted pruning by the court (see, Heimowitz v Handler, Kleiman, Sukenik Segal, 51 A.D.2d 702; Woodmere Academy v Steinberg, 51 A.D.2d 514).