DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly treated that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss her fourth cause of action as one for summary judgment ( see Gelmin v. Quicke, 224 A.D.2d 481; cf. Mihlovan v. Grozavu, 72 N.Y.2d 506), and properly found that "there is no evidence of a willful refusal to provide [the medical] records" that the plaintiff requested and that related to the defendant's treatment of the plaintiff. In the absence of a willful or bad faith refusal to provide access to medical records in accordance with Public Health Law § 18, the allegedly aggrieved patient's judicial recourse is "limited to a judgment requiring [the physician] to make available to the qualified person the requested information for inspection or copying" (Public Health Law § 18[f]; see Public Health Law § 18; cf. Education Law § 6530; Public Health Law § 230-a [administrative penalties for professional misconduct]; Public Health Law §§ 12, 12-b).
PRUDENTI, P.J., FLORIO, H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.