Plaintiff failed to establish special circumstances warranting the depositions of defendant's expert witnesses (see, CPLR 3101[d][iii]) and the court properly granted defendant's motion to quash those subpoenas (see, King Elecs. of Graham Ave. v. Am. Natl. Fire Ins. Co., 232 A.D.2d 273; Generali Ins. Co. v. Honeywell, Inc., 194 A.D.2d 442).
The court properly denied plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint to assert a claim under General Business Law § 349 and a claim for punitive damages since those claims are plainly lacking in merit. Private contract disputes regarding policy coverage and the processing of a claim that is unique to the parties does not fall within the ambit of General Business Law § 349 (see, New York Univ. v. Cont. Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308, 320). Nor would defendant's alleged conduct, even if established, constitute an independent tort or conduct that is part of a pattern directed at the public generally and, thus, plaintiff cannot seek punitive damages as an element of damages in his breach of contract claim (see, Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of the United States, 83 N.Y.2d 603, 613).