Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton Tingling, J.), entered June 4, 2001, which, upon the hearing of a proposed infant compromise in a personal injury action, directed defendant to appear for a deposition concerning his assets, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
We reject defendant’s argument that a deposition concerning a party’s assets is authorized only for purposes of proceedings to enforce a judgment pursuant to CPLR article 52. Conditioning approval of the proposed compromise upon the taking of defendant’s deposition concerning his assets is authorized by CPLR 3101 (a), and was a proper exercise of discretion given the court’s responsibility under CPLR 1207 to approve only a settlement that is in the infant’s best interests (see, Sutherland v City of New York, 107 AD2d 568, affd 66 NY2d 800), the infant’s severe injuries, the low policy limit for which the par ties agreed to settle, and plaintiffs’ agreement with the procedure (compare, id.). Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.