Opinion
February 11, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Scholnick, J.).
Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, the descriptions of the material sought in plaintiff's notice for discovery and inspection, as modified by Special Term, are sufficiently detailed and limited in scope so as not to render their production unduly onerous to the defendants. In addition, their relevance to the issues is sufficiently clear to preclude the conclusion that Special Term abused its discretion in requiring their production under the conditions imposed ( cf. Scheinfeld v Burlant, 98 A.D.2d 603; Barnes v Barnes, 96 A.D.2d 894; Palmieri v Kilcourse, 91 A.D.2d 657).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Rubin, JJ., concur.