Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum:
Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiff's motion for a protective order preventing defendant's expert from conducting a neuropsychological examination of plaintiff. Plaintiff demonstrated, as a matter of law, that defendant's expert was objectionable ( see, 22 NYCRR 202.17 [a]; Hagmeier v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 154 A.D.2d 893; Casali v Phillips, 145 A.D.2d 941, 942; Rosenblitt v. Rosenblitt, 107 A.D.2d 292, 295; cf., Turnbull v. Moulton, 72 Misc.2d 293, 295). The court abused its discretion, however, in denying defendant the opportunity to have a different expert conduct a neuropsychological examination of plaintiff. Thus, we modify the order accordingly.