Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is granted, and the subpoena is quashed.
The respondent's purported need for the subpoenaed radar equipment is for demonstrative purposes. The burden of compelling the State to produce the radar equipment far out-weighs any asserted value that material could have to the respondent in the cross-examination of the State Trooper who charged the respondent with the traffic infraction (see, People v. Russo, 149 A.D.2d 255).
Furthermore, based on the papers submitted herein, the respondent's demand for training materials is no more than an attempt to circumvent the limits imposed upon proper discovery (see, Matter of Constantine v. Leto, 157 A.D.2d 376, affd 77 N.Y.2d 975). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.