DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to quash the subpoena issued to Juan Cortes. The defendant demonstrated that Cortes has information that is material and necessary to the defense of this action (see CPLR 3101[a][4]), and that this information is otherwise unobtainable (see O'Neill v. Oakgrove Constr., 71 N.Y.2d 521, 526; Abbadessa v. Sprint, 291 A.D.2d 363; Bostrum v. William Penn Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 285 A.D.2d 482; Maxwell v. Snapper, Inc., 249 A.D.2d 374; Dioguardi v. St. John's Riverside Hosp., 144 A.D.2d 333).
FLORIO, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN, ADAMS and RIVERA, JJ., concur.