AUERBACH v. FRANK

Ordered that the order is reversed, with costs, the motion for a protective order is granted, and the notice for discovery and inspection dated June 1, 1986 is vacated with leave to serve an appropriate notice for discovery and inspection.

The notice for discovery and inspection served by the plaintiff in this action should be vacated. That notice failed to specify the documents sought by the plaintiff with "reasonable particularity" (CPLR 3120 [a] [1] [i]; see generally, Benzenberg v. Telecom Plus, 119 A.D.2d 717; Zimmerman v. New York City Tr. Auth., 115 A.D.2d 738, 739-740; Harnett v. Skandia Am. Reinsurance Corp., 60 A.D.2d 515; Rios v. Donovan, 21 A.D.2d 409). Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.