BUONACCORSO v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in supervising discovery (see, Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406; Keenan v. Harbor View Health Beauty Spa, 205 A.D.2d 589). Here, the notice for discovery and inspection dated July 27, 1992, was largely duplicative of prior notices. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by striking and vacating the notice (see, e.g., Comstock Co. v. City of New York, 80 A.D.2d 805, 806-807). Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.