DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A plaintiff's motion to compel discovery should be denied where, as here, the document demands are overly broad, vexatious, and tend to confuse, rather than sharpen, the central issue of negligence ( see Harrison v. Bayley Seton Hosp., 219 A.D.2d 584). Here, the plaintiff's vast categorical demands for the by-laws of the hospital and its medical staff, as well as the rules, regulations, policies, and procedures for nine separate departments, including surgery, anesthesiology, radiology, nursing, pathology, medical records, the surgical intensive care unit, the blood bank, and the post-anesthesia care unit, were overly broad and unduly burdensome.
In addition, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's demand for the doctors' initial applications and subsequent renewal applications for hospital privileges on the ground that those records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Education Law § 6527 and Public Health Law article 28. Those statutes protect records relating to the hospital's performance of a medical or quality assurance review function ( see Logue v. Velez, 92 N.Y.2d 13).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, TOWNES and COZIER, JJ., concur.