DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the Supreme Court's determination that the subject documents were not protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, as attorney work product, or as material prepared for litigation (see, CPLR 3101[b], [c], [d][2]; 4503) was a provident exercise of discretion. The burden of establishing that disputed material is exempt from disclosure is on the party opposing discovery (see, Crazytown Furniture v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 145 A.D.2d 402, 403; Bloss v. Ford Motor Co., 126 A.D.2d 804, 805), and conclusory allegations of privilege are not sufficient to satisfy that burden (see, Bib Constr. Co. v. City of Poughkeepsie, 260 A.D.2d 590). Despite the fact that the appellant labelled the documents a "Litigation Study", the primary impetus for and predominant purpose of the study was to improve the safety and design of the seating components in its vehicles. Moreover, there is no evidence that the study was generated to assist the legal staff in the defense of any pending or future litigation.