There is no basis to disturb the motion court's finding, made after an in camera inspection, that the documents had no more than a "mixed" litigation and business purpose ( Commerce Indus. Ins. Co. v Laufer Vision World, 225 AD2d 313, 314), and were not prepared solely at the direction of counsel or for transmittal to counsel ( cf., Matter of Goldstein v New York Daily News, 106 AD2d 323). We also note that the motion was opposed on the basis of a claim of privilege supported only by conclusory assertions with no evidentiary foundation ( see, Martino v Kalbacher, 225 AD2d 862). Accordingly, the order to compel was an appropriate exercise of discretion. Appellants never sought partial redaction during the in camera inspection ( cf., Commerce Indus. Ins. Co. v Laufer Vision World, supra), and we decline to consider the request made for the first time on appeal.