The IAS Court properly denied defendants' motion to depose plaintiff's psychiatrist. In this case, the psychiatric report submitted by plaintiff's treating physician is sufficient to meet the requisites of CPLR 3101 (d) (1) by providing a clear idea of the nature of the testimony, as well as some basis for the diagnosis. In addition, defendants have failed to demonstrate any "special circumstances" which would support their request to depose plaintiff's treating physician (CPLR 3101 [d] [1] [iii]).
With respect to the third-party defendant insurer's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, the IAS Court properly determined that the insurer failed to meet its burden of proving that the exclusionary provision, strictly and narrowly construed, applied in this case, and that it is subject to no other reasonable interpretation (Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co., 64 N.Y.2d 304, 311). Therefore, there was no basis to dismiss the third-party claim that, inter alia, the insurer is required to defend.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.