Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly found that the subpoena duces tecum which the defendants served upon a nonparty, Joseph Lazzaro, was facially defective because it neither contained nor was accompanied by a notice stating the "circumstances or reasons such disclosure is * * * required" (CPLR 3101 [a] [4]; see, Bigman v. Dime Sav. Bank, 138 A.D.2d 438).
The defendants' remaining contention is without merit.
Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.