Opinion
October 24, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Paula Omansky, J.).
The subpoenas duces tecum with notice of deposition served on plaintiff's health care providers were facially defective for failure to "stat[e] the circumstances or reasons such disclosure is sought or required", as required by CPLR 3101 (a) (4) ( Rickicki v. Borden Chem., 195 A.D.2d 986; Pavia v. 810 Broadway Assocs., 130 Misc.2d 1054). Whether the IAS Court could have permitted the omissions to be corrected is a question we do not reach, since no such relief was sought by defendants. In any event, we agree with the IAS Court's exercise of discretion in refusing to enforce the subpoenas on the ground that the medical records already received or made available to defendants were sufficient to enable them to prepare for trial ( see, Ferrer v Horvath, 143 A.D.2d 627).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.