Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The interrogatories in question were properly stricken as irrelevant as they sought detailed information concerning plaintiff's finances for the 10-year period preceding plaintiff's opening of an investment account with defendant, the alleged mismanagement of which is the subject of the instant action. Where a client alleges, as here, that the investment broker has improperly "churned" his or her account, the issue of whether the trading engaged in was excessive must be examined in light of the investment objectives of the customer (see, e.g., Rolf v Blyth Eastman Dillon Co., 424 F. Supp. 1021, 1039-1040, affd and remanded 570 F.2d 38, cert denied 439 U.S. 1039; Van Alen v Dominick Dominick, 441 F. Supp. 389, 400-401, affd 560 F.2d 547; Mihara v Dean Witter Co., 619 F.2d 814, 820-821), and not, as defendant argues here, in light of the client's over-all wealth and financial history. Bracken, J.P., Weinstein, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.