In Logue v. Velez, 92 N.Y.2d 13 (1998), the plaintiffs had moved in Supreme Court to compel disclosure of a doctor's applications for hospital privileges. The Court of Appeals ultimately found that the defendant doctor's "initial and renewal applications for privileges fell squarely within the materials that are made confidential by Education Law 6527 (3) and article 28 of the Public Health Law." (Id. at 18.) In reaching its conclusion, that Court considered the affidavits of the defendant hospital's medical director, the staff person responsible for overseeing the credentialing of physicians during the years relevant to the action, which set forth that "the application materials at issue were reviewed by the Hospital's credentialing committee as part of a procedure conducted every two years to assess physicians' competence for issuing or renewing privileges and to prevent medical malpractice." (Ibid.) Therefore, the Court found, "the applications were required as part of a process to insure the capability of an attending physician to perform the procedures for which privileges were to be granted and, thus, were 'records relating to the Hospital's performance of a medical or a quality assurance review function' (Education Law 6527 [3])." (Ibid.)