ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to strike the notice to admit dated January 16, 2001, since several of the demands contained therein sought "admissions as to material and ultimate issues" (Kimmel v. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison, 214 A.D.2d 453; see, Berg v. Flower Fifth Ave. Hosp., 102 A.D.2d 760). Furthermore, a notice to admit is not to be used "as a substitute for existing discovery devices" (Jonas v. Liberty Lines Tr., 142 A.D.2d 554, 555), or as "a subterfuge for obtaining further discovery" (Hodes v. City of New York, 165 A.D.2d 168, 171).
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to quash the subpoena served on their attorney, since the appellant sought to compel that attorney to testify at trial about confidential matters (see, CPLR 4503[a]).
SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN and FRIEDMANN, JJ., concur.