Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Recently, this Court noted that "[t]he supervision of disclosure and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions therefor rests within the sound discretion of the trial court * * * and, absent an improvident exercise of that discretion, its determination will not be disturbed" ( Mattocks v. White Motor Corp., 258 A.D.2d 628, 629). Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to compel the defendants Stuart T. Rosenberg and Karl M. Neimand to provide further discovery in the form of additional handwriting exemplars ( see, 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]; Scocozza v. Tolia, 254 A.D.2d 475; Dittert v. Oak Tree Farm Dairy, 249 A.D.2d 356).
O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Joy, Altman and Smith, JJ., concur.