Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The mere assertion of the appellant that the documents under review were shielded by the attorney-client privilege, or were exempt from disclosure as attorney work product or as material prepared for litigation, did not satisfy its burden of showing that the materials in question were protected from disclosure ( see, e.g., People v. Osorio, 75 N.Y.2d 80; Doe v. Poe, 244 A.D.2d 450, affd 92 N.Y.2d 864). We detect no abuse or improvident exercise of the Supreme Court's broad discretionary powers with regard to discovery matters in directing disclosure of the documents in question ( see, e.g., Hines v. Rap Realty Corp., 254 A.D.2d 330; Salkey v. Mott, 237 A.D.2d 504).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.