Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this breach of contract action between a participating provider physician and a health maintenance organization concerning reimbursement for provider services, Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff's motion to compel disclosure. Because the material sought relates to the performance of defendant's quality assurance review functions, it was exempt from disclosure (see, Education Law § 6527; McGlynn v Grinberg, 172 A.D.2d 960; Shapiro v Central Gen. Hosp., 171 A.D.2d 786; Matter of Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp. v Denis, 161 A.D.2d 1030; Parker v St. Clare's Hosp., 159 A.D.2d 919; see also, Lilly v Turecki, 112 A.D.2d 788; cf., Matter of St. Elizabeth's Hosp. v State Bd. of Professional Med. Conduct, 174 A.D.2d 225). We reject plaintiff's contention that to apply the statutory prohibition against such disclosure would run contrary to the legislative intent.