Upon review of the prior order entered on or about October 25, 1994 (David Saxe, J.), which was not appealed insofar as it directed defendant to produce all documents demanded by plaintiff in his possession or control ( see, Harris v. Hirsh, 196 A.D.2d 425, 426, affd 83 N.Y.2d 734, vacated on other grounds 513 U.S. 1141; Ennist v. Shepherd, 117 A.D.2d 580), we find that it did not properly safeguard defendant's attorney-client privilege, and that the order on appeal properly corrected this deficiency by permitting the redaction of all material contained in defendant's attorney's bills other than the number of hours worked and the dollar amount charged ( see, De La Roche v. De La Roche, 209 A.D.2d 157, 158-159; Wolf v. Wolf, 160 A.D.2d 555).
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.