RODRIGUEZ v. CRESCENT CONTR. CORP

The trial subpoenas issued by counsel for Perini were properly quashed as overbroad ( see Grotallio v. Soft Drink Leasing Corp., 97 A.D.2d 383) and improper discovery devices ( see Mestel Co. v. Smythe Masterson Judd, 215 A.D.2d 329). Under the particular circumstances presented, Crescent's motion to quash was timely ( see CPLR 2304).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.