WOLF v. WOLF

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion to quash the subpoena is granted in its entirety.

The subpoena duces tecum that was served upon the nonparty-appellant was facially invalid and unenforceable, because it neither contained nor was accompanied by a notice setting forth the reason why such disclosure was sought (see CPLR 3101[a][4]; Matter of Ehmer, 272 A.D.2d 540; Lazzaro v. County of Nassau, 240 A.D.2d 546). Moreover, it was not established that there were special circumstances warranting disclosure from a nonparty (see Wurtzel v. Wurtzel, 227 A.D.2d 548). Accordingly, the motion to quash the subpoena should have been granted in its entirety.

FEUERSTEIN, J.P., SMITH, O'BRIEN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.