Plaintiffs herein have commenced supplementary proceedings against the movant on the ground that it holds assets of defendant Joseph M. Aronow, a judgment debtor pursuant to a judgment affirmed by this Court ( 164 A.D.2d 737, stay denied 78 N.Y.2d 952).
A protective order pursuant to CPLR 5240 is a matter of the IAS court's broad discretion (Guardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 N.Y.2d 515, 519), and should be issued with caution (Reynders v Reynders, 155 A.D.2d 987). Here, the restraining notice on the movant law firm is based on assets in which one of the judgment defendants, a shareholder of the professional corporation, has a direct interest (see, Ray v Jama Prods., 74 A.D.2d 845, lv denied 49 N.Y.2d 709). The judicial subpoenas are not overly broad (cf., Andrew F. Capoccia, P.C. v Spiro, 88 A.D.2d 1100), nor are they intended primarily as harassment. (Cf., Seyfarth v Bi-County Elec. Corp., 73 Misc.2d 363.)
Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion in the IAS court's denial of the protective order (see, Foremost Ins. Co. v Facultative Group, 80 A.D.2d 598).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.