Opinion
October 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the defendant's cross motion for a protective order is granted, the plaintiff's first request for documents dated January 8, 1993, is vacated, without prejudice to the plaintiff to renew his request pursuant to an appropriate notice to obtain discovery and inspection in accordance herewith.
The failure of a party to challenge the propriety of a notice for discovery and inspection pursuant to CPLR 3120 within the time prescribed by CPLR 3122 forecloses inquiry into the propriety of the information sought except with regard to material that is privileged pursuant to CPLR 3101 or requests that are palpably improper (see, Muller v. Sorensen, 138 A.D.2d 683, 684).
The defendant correctly contends that the plaintiff's first request for documents is palpably improper since it seeks information of a confidential and private nature that is not relevant to the issues in this case (see, Zimmer v. Cathedral School of St. Mary St. Paul, 204 A.D.2d 538; Grossman v Lacoff, 168 A.D.2d 484, 485). In addition to being palpably improper for the foregoing reason, specifications 4, 5, 6, 7, and 16 are so overbroad as to rise to the level of being palpably improper (see, Zambelis v. Nicholas, 92 A.D.2d 936). Sullivan, J.P., Thompson, Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.