Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Under the circumstances of this case, where the defendant offered no medical evidence indicating that an MRI examination of the plaintiff's left knee will be necessary to its defense of this action, and the defendant already conducted two physical examinations of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the trial court improvidently exercised its broad discretion in the supervision of disclosure by ordering the case returned to the trial calendar without first directing that the plaintiff submit to the examination in question (see, Inscoe v. Vassar Bros. Hosp., 180 A.D.2d 896; cf., Lapera v. Shafron, 159 A.D.2d 614; Langelier v. Ford, 159 A.D.2d 851). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.