Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiff's motion to compel the disclosure of certain documents is denied, and the defendant's cross motion for a protective order is granted.
While CPLR 3101 (a) provides that "there shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution . . . of an action" ( see Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406), "unlimited disclosure is not permitted" ( Silcox v City of New York, 233 AD2d 494, 494). It is well settled that certain documents generated in connection with the "performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function" are not subject to disclosure (Education Law § 6527; see Education Law § 6527; Public Health Law § 2805-m; Buckley v Litman, 57 NY2d 516, 518-519; Shapiro v Central Gen. Hosp., 251 AD2d 317; Heitman v Mango, 237 AD2d 330). Similarly, also pursuant to Education Law § 6527 (3), no "reports which are required to be filed under Public Health Law § 2805-Z shall be subject to disclosure under CPLR article 31" ( Marte v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 9 AD3d 41, 42). Here, the defendant sustained its burden of demonstrating that the documents sought were prepared in accordance with the relevant statutes ( see Marte v Brooklyn Hosp. Ctr., 9 AD3d at 42; Orner v Mount Sinai Hosp., 305 AD2d 307, 311). Accordingly, the court erred in directing their disclosure.