Plaintiff attorney's claim that the services at issue rendered by him to defendant law firm were so distinct from the contractually governed duties of his employment with the firm as to be compensable on a quantum meruit basis is not tenable. Indeed, it is plain that the services in question fell squarely within the contractually contemplated duties of plaintiff's employment and, accordingly, that plaintiffs claim to recover for those services in quantum meruit was properly dismissed ( see Freedman v Pearlman, 271 AD2d 301, 304). The motion court properly exercised its discretion in requiring the parties to enter into a confidentiality order before using or exchanging payroll documents during discovery.
Plaintiffs challenge to the Special Referee's ruling closing the deposition of Richard Fischbein should have been reviewed and determined by the motion court ( see CPLR 3104 [d]).
Although the appeal from the order entered September 26, 2005 was not timely taken and is not properly before us, we note that plaintiff, as a highly compensated professional, has no cognizable claim under Labor Law § 198 ( see Labor Law § 190), and in any case, has failed to make the requisite supporting allegation for such a claim of a violation of Labor Law article 6 ( see Gottlieb v Kenneth D. Laub Co., 82 NY2d 457, 463).