
    Pauline D’Chiutiis-Lattuga, Respondent, v Sebastian Lattuga, Appellant.
    [834 NYS2d 475]
   In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannaeci, J), entered November 4, 2005, which granted the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for a protective order quashing certain subpoenas duces tecum.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by adding a provision thereto granting leave to the defendant, if he be so advised, to serve appropriate subpoenas following the completion of discovery and the evaluation of the parties’ business interests by the court-appointed neutral expert; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, at this juncture, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion, inter alia, for a protective order quashing certain subpoenas duces tecum (see CPLR 3103; Jacobs v Mostow, 23 AD 3d 623, 624 [2005]). We note that, at the request of the defendant, the Supreme Court appointed a neutral expert to assist in evaluating the parties’ business interests. At the time that the defendant served the subject subpoenas duces tecum, this expert was in the process of reviewing, inter alia, certain documents and information involving the same entities served with the subject subpoenas duces tecum. Moreover, discovery in this action is still outstanding. Thus, following the completion of the outstanding discovery and the evaluation by the court-appointed neutral expert, the defendant may, if he be so advised, serve appropriate subpoenas (see CPLR 2301, 3120 [2]; Matter of Ehmer, 272 AD2d 540, 541 [2000]). Rivera, J.E, Florio, Dillon and Garni, JJ., concur.  