Ordered that the order dated March 6, 2009, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor are matters resting within the Supreme Court's discretion and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, the determination of the Supreme Court will not be disturbed on appeal ( see Matter of U.S. Pioneer Elecs. Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp. of Am.], 47 NY2d 914, 916; Rinaldi v Evenflo Co., Inc., 62 AD3d 856; Gillen v Utica First Ins. Co., 41 AD3d 647). Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the plaintiffs to disclose the identity of the mohel who performed the circumcision on the infant plaintiff, as the identity of the mohel was material and necessary to the defense of the action ( see CPLR 3101 [a]).