ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (hereinafter FHCQIA) grants immunity from liability to all participants in a professional physician peer review in the absence of malice, and if the due process protections set forth in FHCQIA have been afforded to the affected physician (see, 42 U.S.C. § 11101, 11112[a]). In addition, the participants are afforded immunity from liability under State statutes (see, Public Health Law § 2805-j; Education Law § 6527). In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact as to whether the defendants were immune from liability for their participation in the professional peer review of the plaintiff (see, Mathews v. Lancaster Gen. Hosp., 87 F.3d 624, 632-633 [3d Cir 1996]; Shapiro v. Central Gen. Hosp., 251 A.D.2d 317).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, H. MILLER and SMITH, JJ., concur.