FINN v. TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the motion of Mercedes-Benz Credit Corporation (hereinafter MBCC), a defendant in Action No. 2, which was to compel Joseph E. McVeigh, a plaintiff in Action No. 2, to provide authorizations for his complete academic, employment, and medical records. The notice to produce of MBCC was overbroad and failed to specify the documents sought with "reasonable particularity" (CPLR 3120[a][2]; Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., Inc., 247 A.D.2d 513; Blum, Inc. v. Allied Hardware, 237 A.D.2d 492; Fascaldi v. Fascaldi, 209 A.D.2d 578, 579; American Reliance Ins. Co. v. National Gen. Ins. Co., 174 A.D.2d 591).

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