Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the appellants' motion to compel production of a report completed by a medical expert with whom the plaintiff consulted. The plaintiff established that the report was prepared solely in anticipation of litigation ( see CPLR 3101 [d] [2]; Kephart v Burke), 306 AD2d 924, 925; Santariga v McCann), 161 AD2d 320, 322). Further, the appellants failed to establish that they had a substantial need for the report in the preparation of their case and could not, without undue hardship, obtain the substantial equivalent of the report by other means ( see CPLR 3101 [d] [2]; Heimanson v Farkas), 292 AD2d 421, 422; Martinez v KSM Holding), 294 AD2d 111, 111-112; DeGourney v Mulzac), 287 AD2d 680).
The appellants' remaining contentions either are without merit or do not require reversal.