Opinion
January 24, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Irma Vidal Santaella, J.).
Chemical has not demonstrated that the IAS court abused its discretion in granting a protective order (Nitz v Prudential-Bache Sec., 102 A.D.2d 914). Notwithstanding the fact that Chemical's defense may be based, in part, on plaintiff's failure to have inspected bank statements and given notice of embezzlements, which would thereby limit plaintiff's recovery (see, Arrow Bldrs. Supply Corp v Royal Natl. Bank, 21 N.Y.2d 428), the interrogatories and demand for documents, for which the protective order was granted, do not relate to evidence material or necessary to Chemical's defense. (Fell v Presbyterian Hosp., 98 A.D.2d 624.)
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Smith, JJ.