After the orders appealed from were entered, the matter proceeded to trial. Shortly before the trial commenced, however, respondent-respondent requested a meeting with the court-appointed validator and voluntarily turned over the medical records in question for her evaluation. In contemplation that all parties to the proceeding would be entitled to possession of the records for the purpose of cross-examining the court-appointed validator, respondent-respondent consented to the release of the records to all parties. Since the disputed medical records were disclosed and were introduced into evidence at the trial, that portion of respondent-appellant's appeal which challenged the Family Court's denial of her application for discovery of the medical records is moot (Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas for Locals 17, 135, 257 608 [People], 72 N.Y.2d 307, cert denied 488 U.S. 966).
With respect to that portion of respondent-appellant's application which sought to compel depositions of any medical personnel who treated respondent-respondent within the last five years, we find that it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the Family Court to have imposed certain limitations and conditions upon the depositions requested since respondent-appellant failed to demonstrate the existence of special circumstances warranting such examinations (Matter of Carla L., 45 A.D.2d 375; Matter of Vanessa R., 148 A.D.2d 989). Moreover, an expeditious resolution of this matter is in the best interest of the child. Should circumstances develop which would warrant that further depositions or discovery be held, the Family Court is, of course, free to exercise its discretion to order them.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.