DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order dated August 14, 2002, is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the orders dated September 6, 2002, are affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to restore one of two related actions to the trial calendar pending completion of discovery in the companion action ( see Small v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 306 A.D.2d 269; Maragos v. Getty Petroleum Corp., 303 A.D.2d 652).
The interrogatories submitted to the defendants in these companion actions, which contained multiple subparts and references to other documents, were patently overbroad and improper ( see EIFS, Inc. v. Morie Co., Inc., 298 A.D.2d 548; Bettan v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., 296 A.D.2d 469, 471). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the plaintiff's motions which were to compel the defendants to respond to the interrogatories and to strike their answers and vacated the interrogatories ( see Mangiapane v. Brookhaven Beach Health Related Facility, 305 A.D.2d 642; Mabey v. Winthrop Univ. Hosp., 302 A.D.2d 371; Bettan v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co., supra).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO and COZIER, JJ., concur.