Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Peter Paul Sweeney, J.), entered August 2, 2005. The order granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of compelling plaintiff to respond to defendant's discovery demands and to appear for an examination before trial.

Order affirmed without costs.

In this action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant denied the claim on the ground, inter alia, that the injuries were not caused by the accident. Defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's complaint based on its failure to respond to defendant's discovery demands and failure to appear for an examination before trial or, in the alternative, an order compelling plaintiff to respond to its discovery demands and to appear for an examination before trial. The plaintiff's failure to challenge defendant's notice of discovery within the time prescribed "foreclosed inquiry into the propriety of the information sought except with regard to requests that are privileged under CPLR 3101, or as to requests which are palpably improper" (Fausto v City of New York, 17 AD3d 520, 522 [2005]; see Marino v County of Nassau, 16 AD3d 628 [2005]; Garcia v Jomber Realty, 264 AD2d 809 [1999]). Consequently, the order, which compelled plaintiff to respond to defendant's discovery demands and to appear for an examination before trial, is affirmed.

Pesce, P.J., Golia and Rios, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: June 30, 2006