Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The proposed subpoena duces tecum, which requires the New York State Police Department to produce all of its documents and records concerning the plaintiffs and its investigation of the plaintiffs, is overly broad (see, Grotalho v. Soft Drink Leasing Corp., 97 A.D.2d 383). The plaintiffs are improperly attempting to engage in general discovery or a "fishing expedition" through the use of a subpoena. As such, their application for the issuance of the proposed subpoena was properly denied (see, People v Gissendanner, 48 N.Y.2d 543; Matter of D'Alimonte v. Kuriansky, 144 A.D.2d 737; Matter of Gelderman, 111 A.D.2d 332, 333).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.