Supreme Court, Appellate Division, 
Second Department, New York.
GABBY'S ARMY NAVY, INC., Respondent,
v.
AFA PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant.
November 12, 1985
 Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Kenneth Kirschenbaum, of 
counsel), for appellant.   Shapiro, Baines & Saasto, Mineola (B. Jennifer 
Jaffee, New York City, and Steven J. Seiden, Oceanside, of counsel), for 
respondent.
 In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, breach of warranty and 
negligence, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order 
of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Adler, J.), dated April 30, 1985, as granted 
plaintiff's motion for an order of protection with respect to certain items 
demanded in defendant's notice for discovery and inspection.   Order reversed 
insofar as appealed from, with costs, and plaintiff's motion for a protective 
order is denied in its entirety.   Under the circumstances of this case, all of 
the items *883 demanded by defendant were properly discoverable.
 LAZER, J.P., and THOMPSON, O'CONNOR, RUBIN and KUNZEMAN, JJ., concur.
495 N.Y.S.2d 651 (Mem), 114 A.D.2d 882
END OF DOCUMENT

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

GABBY'S ARMY NAVY, INC., Respondent,v.AFA PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant.

November 12, 1985
 Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City (Kenneth Kirschenbaum, of counsel), for appellant.   Shapiro, Baines & Saasto, Mineola (B. Jennifer Jaffee, New York City, and Steven J. Seiden, Oceanside, of counsel), for respondent.

 In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, breach of warranty and negligence, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Adler, J.), dated April 30, 1985, as granted plaintiff's motion for an order of protection with respect to certain items demanded in defendant's notice for discovery and inspection.   Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and plaintiff's motion for a protective order is denied in its entirety.   Under the circumstances of this case, all of the items *883 demanded by defendant were properly discoverable.

 LAZER, J.P., and THOMPSON, O'CONNOR, RUBIN and KUNZEMAN, JJ., concur.
495 N.Y.S.2d 651 (Mem), 114 A.D.2d 882
END OF DOCUMENT