Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
While CPLR 3101 (d) (1) (i) grants a party the right to not disclose the name of a prospective medical expert, its underlying purpose is not to preclude any possibility of identifying an adversary's medical expert in a medical, dental or podiatric malpractice action. In the instant case, the respondents' October 2, 1985 demand for the disclosure of the qualifications of the plaintiff's experts was not unduly burdensome. Under the circumstances, Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for a protective order to the extent indicated (see, Dunsmore v Paprin, 114 A.D.2d 836, 837; Nitz v Prudential-Bache Sec., 102 A.D.2d 914, 915; Oppenheimer v Shubitowski, 92 A.D.2d 1021, 1022, appeal dismissed 59 N.Y.2d 970). Mollen, P.J., Brown, Weinstein and Eiber, JJ., concur.