July 15, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well settled that the supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Matter of U.S. Pioneer Elec. Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp.], 47 N.Y.2d 914, 916; Boylin v Eagle Telephonics, 130 A.D.2d 538) and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed (see, Cable v IBM Corp., 101 A.D.2d 799; see also, PCB Piezotronics v Change, 163 A.D.2d 829). We find that no improvident exercise of discretion has been demonstrated in the instant matter. The fee schedule information contained in the contract sought by the plaintiff may be material and relevant to determining the degree of control exercised by the defendant Booth Memorial Medical Center over the radiology group headed by the appellant Barry Held. The group also apparently included the appellants Robert Meisell, Alex Tallis, Lawrence Schechter, and William Wolff. This information may, therefore, bear upon the issue of Booth Memorial Medical Center's vicarious liability for the negligence of an individual member of the radiology group (see, Kavanaugh v Nussbaum, 71 N.Y.2d 535, 547; Hill v St. Clare's Hosp., 67 N.Y.2d 72, 79; Mertsaris v 73rd Corp., 105 A.D.2d 67, 80; Mduba v Benedictine Hosp., 52 A.D.2d 450). Accordingly, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from. Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Balletta and Ritter, JJ., concur.