Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly directed the defendant to provide to the plaintiffs a duplicate copy of any hospital records obtained as a result of the authorizations of the plaintiff Eleanor Castagnazzi (see, CPLR 3121 [a]; Tower v Chemical Bank, 140 A.D.2d 514, 516; Czekanski v Hanretta, 42 Misc.2d 115). The mere fact that the defendant made his demand for authorizations prior to any demand for a physical examination cannot excuse noncompliance with the statute (see, Tower v Chemical Bank, supra; Keays v Vanderheyden Hall, 43 Misc.2d 399). Moreover, in keeping with its broad discretion to set the terms and conditions of discovery (see, CPLR 3103 [a]; Nitz v Prudential-Bache Sec., 102 A.D.2d 914, 915), the Supreme Court fashioned an appropriate remedy by having the plaintiffs shoulder a reasonable cost of the duplication (see generally, Rosado v Mercedes-Benz of N. Am., 103 A.D.2d 395, 398; Close v Schaeffer, 116 Misc.2d 916). Kooper, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Miller, JJ., concur.