FANELLI v. FANELLI

ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, awarded the defendant an attorney's fee is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from a sua sponte order, and leave to appeal has not been granted (see CPLR 5701[c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The Supreme Court properly denied, on both procedural and substantive grounds, the plaintiff's motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum and for a protective order. The plaintiff's counsel failed to provide the required affirmation of a good faith effort to resolve the disclosure dispute (see 22 NYCRR 202.7[a][2]; Hegler v. Loews Roosevelt Field Cinemas, 280 A.D.2d 645; Romero v. Korn, 236 A.D.2d 598). Moreover, suppression of the requested documents was not warranted under the circumstances of this case (see Gutierrez v. Dudock, 276 A.D.2d 746; DiMarco v. Sparks, 212 A.D.2d 965).

O'BRIEN, J.P., H. MILLER, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.