ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to compel the appellant to submit to an examination before trial, and in denying his cross motion for a protective order (see CPLR 3126; Espinal v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 806; Nicoletti v. Ozram Transp., Inc., 286 A.D.2d 719; Kubacka v. Town of N. Hempstead, 240 A.D.2d 374, 375; Soto v. City of Long Beach, 197 A.D.2d 615, 616). The conclusory affirmation of the appellant's psychiatrist in support of the motion was insufficient to establish that the appellant's health would be endangered if he submitted to an examination before trial. We note that contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court did not conditionally strike his answer, but instead, merely directed him to appear for an examination before trial on a certain date.
O'BRIEN, J.P., H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.