Ordered that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the provision which directed a further response as to the expert's qualifications; as so modified the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We agree that the request for further information as to the expert's qualifications was palpably improper since it would effectively lead to disclosure of the expert's identity which is not required in a medical malpractice action under the statute (CPLR 3101 [d] [1]; Renucci v. Mercy Hosp., 124 A.D.2d 796). Otherwise, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's direction for a further response as to the substance of the facts and opinions and the basis for the expert's opinions (CPLR 3101 [d] [1]). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.