Opinion
November 17, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Wolf, R.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to CPLR 3120 (a) (2) (b), a motion for the production of documents, etc., upon a nonparty "shall be on notice to all adverse parties". In the present action, the petitioner failed to sufficiently notify the respondent, an adverse party, of its issuance of subpoenas duces tecum upon a number of nonparty witnesses. Consequently, it was proper for the Referee to quash the subpoenas.
Furthermore, the Referee, who was appointed with the power to "hear and determine", had "all the powers of a court performing a like function" (CPLR 4301). Therefore, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Referee to order the petitioner to pay one-half the copying costs spent by the respondent in fulfilling the petitioner's voluminous document request ( see, Watts v. Peekskill Bell, 147 A.D.2d 838; Sears v. Rekuc, 121 Misc.2d 811).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.