[*1]
Howard M. Rombom Ph.D., P.C. v Chubb Indem. Ins. Co.
2004 NY Slip Op 51630(U)
Decided on December 15, 2004
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on December 15, 2004
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: December 15, 2004 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE TERM : 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS PRESENT : McCABE, P.J., COVELLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2004-547 S C

HOWARD M. ROMBOM P.H.D., P.C., Assignee of MICHAEL FALCO, Respondent,

against

CHUBB INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.


Appeal by defendant from an order of the District Court, Suffolk County


(P. Barton, J.), entered March 26, 2004, striking its answer unless it provided responses to certain interrogatories within a specified time.

Order unanimously modified by deleting that part of the order directing defendant to answer interrogatory number 8; as so modified, affirmed without costs.

Upon a review of the record, we find that the court below acted well within its authority by conditionally striking defendant's answer. Defendant's failure to timely [*2]
object to interrogatories numbered 3, 4, 5, 7, and 25, which do not seek privileged information and are not palpably improper, within the time frame imposed by CPLR 3133 (a), foreclosed inquiry into the propriety of the information sought therein (see e.g.
Srinivasan v City of New York, 276 AD2d 786 [2000]; Otto v Triangle Aviation Servs., 258 AD2d 448 [1999]; Holness v Chrysler Corp., 220 AD2d 721 [1995]). However, defendant fully answered interrogatory number 8 by referring plaintiff to the annexed copy of its denial and, thus, should not have been ordered to provide further response to this interrogatory.


Decision Date: December 15, 2004