Opinion
October 5, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lisa, J.).
Ordered that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is, granted ( see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to compel the plaintiff to provide further discovery of his expert witness. The court properly found that the information already provided regarding the expert's qualifications adequately complied with the statutory requirements for disclosure ( see, CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [i]; Jasopersaud v. Tao Gyoun Rho, 169 A.D.2d 184).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by considering the untimely papers submitted by the plaintiff in opposition to the defendant's motion, after it adjourned the motion date to afford the defendant an opportunity to submit reply papers ( see, CPLR 2214; Kavakis v. Total Care Sys., 209 A.D.2d 480).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.