Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs payable to the respondent.
"CPLR 3121 (a) provides that when the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, any party may serve notice on another party to submit to a physical or mental examination by a designated physician. It is a generally accepted principle that parties to a contested custody proceeding place their physical and mental conditions in issue" ( Anonymous v Anonymous, 5 AD3d 516, 517). Although the "broad scope of discovery permitted under the CPLR takes on particular significance in child custody disputes" ( Burgel v Burgel, 141 AD2d 215, 216), "because the potential for abuse in matrimonial and custody cases is `so great' ( see, Lohmiller v Lohmiller, 118 AD2d 760; cf., Wegman v Wegman, 37 NY2d 940; Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt [ 107 AD2d 292]), the court's discretionary power to limit disclosure and grant protective orders is equally broad" ( Garvin v Garvin, 162 AD2d 497, 499).
In this matter, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to compel a physical examination and granting the plaintiff a protective order, as the defendant failed to establish that a legitimate purpose would be served by requiring the plaintiff to undergo a physical examination ( id.).