Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Alice Fisher Rubin, J.), entered August 8, 2005. The order granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross motion to compel plaintiff to provide discovery.

Order reversed without costs, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment denied and defendant's cross motion to compel plaintiff to provide discovery granted to the extent of compelling plaintiff to serve, within 30 days after the date of the order entered hereon, responses to defendant's demand for written interrogatories and supplemental demand for written interrogatories, and, within 30 days after service of such responses,
to produce for examinations before trial the witnesses identified in defendant's notice of examination before trial.

For the reasons stated in North Acupuncture, P.C. v State Farm Ins. Co. (No. 2005-1814 K C, decided herewith), plaintiff's motion for summary judgment should have been denied.

With respect to defendant's cross motion to compel plaintiff to provide discovery, plaintiff failed to oppose said cross motion and it concedes on appeal that it did not respond to the discovery demands served by defendant or object thereto after the discovery demands were received. As a result, defendant's cross motion to compel discovery is granted to the extent indicated (see A.B. Med. Servs. PLLC v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 11 Misc 3d 71 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2006]).

Weston Patterson, J.P., and Rios, J., concur.

Golia, J., concurs in a separate memorandum.

Golia, J., concurs with the result only, in the following memorandum:

While I agree with the ultimate disposition in the decision reached by the majority, I wish to emphasize that I am constrained to agree with certain propositions of law set forth in cases cited therein which are inconsistent with my prior expressed positions and generally contrary to my views.
Decision Date: December 18, 2006