DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
To the extent that the plaintiff seeks to compel the defendant Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc. (hereinafter Home Depot), to produce certain documents which are allegedly material and necessary to its prosecution of this action, its request has been rendered academic by the dismissal of its complaint against Home Depot (see Palermo Mason Constr. v. AARK Holding Corp., 300 A.D.2d 458 [decided herewith]). Furthermore, we reject the plaintiff's contention that the documents it seeks, as well as a deposition of a Home Depot representative, are necessary to defend the counterclaim asserted against it by Home Depot. "While CPLR 3101(a) provides for full disclosure of all evidence material and necessary to the prosecution or defense of an action, unlimited disclosure is not required, and supervision of disclosure is generally left to the trial court's broad discretion" (Blagrove v. Cox, 294 A.D.2d 526; see Allen v. Crowell-Collier Pub. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406). Here, the plaintiff previously conducted an extensive deposition of a Home Depot representative and obtained disclosure of relevant documents during the litigation of a prior related action. Since the plaintiff failed to show that additional discovery is material and necessary to its defense of Home Depot's counterclaim, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying its motion to compel Home Depot to comply with its allegedly outstanding disclosure requests (see CPLR 3101(a); Miller v. Kings Highway Hosp., Inc., 225 A.D.2d 532).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.