Opinion
November 4, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Palella, J.).
Order affirmed, with costs.
The granting of the protective order here was a proper exercise of discretion since the plaintiff's numerous demands were burdensome and oppressive, and many were so vague or inappropriate that no proper response could be formulated. In such a case, the demands should be vacated rather than pruned, as the "`burden of serving a proper demand is upon counsel, and [it is] not for the courts to correct a palpably bad one'" (Martino v Mid-Island Hosp., 73 A.D.2d 592, quoting from Itzkoff v Allstate Ins. Co., 59 A.D.2d 854; Barouh Eaton Allen Corp. v International Business Machs. Corp., 76 A.D.2d 873; Hirsch v Catholic Med. Center, 91 A.D.2d 1033). Niehoff, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.