In Freni v. Eastbridge Assoc.(309 A.D.2d 700), the Appellate Division affirmed the grant of defendant's motion to compel the examination of plaintiff by a vocational specialist where plaintiff claimed lost future wages, finding that such a holding "is consistent with the view expressed in Kavanagh v. Ogden Allied Maintenance Corp that the scope of the discovery statutes is very broad, consistent with New York's policy of permitting open and far-reaching pretrial discovery" ( id. at 700). In rejecting plaintiff's argument that such an examination should only be allowed if plaintiff intended to use a vocational rehabilitation specialist to support his or her case, the court further noted that: "Defendants may consider a vocational expert far more qualified than a medical doctor in determining whether plaintiff's injuries prevent him from working, and restricting them from this proof on the ground that plaintiff failed to retain his own expert would impair their right to discovery. On the other hand, adopting a rule of reciprocity, as plaintiff suggests we should, would enable plaintiff to control and limit the scope of discovery on an issue that he has placed in controversy."