RAFMAN v. INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO. OF N. AM

Summary judgment was proper absent an adequate explanation from plaintiff why she repeatedly failed to supply necessary information relating to her insurance claim or to appear at a deposition repeatedly rescheduled to allow her more time to comply with defendants' requests for information (see, Lentini Bros. Moving Stor. Co. v. New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 53 N.Y.2d 835, 837; Bulzomi v. New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 92 A.D.2d 878). Cases cited by plaintiff to the effect that sanctions for failure to disclose should not be imposed without a showing by the seeking party of the particular questions not answered and documents not produced (American Reliance Ins. Co. v. National Gen. Ins. Co., 174 A.D.2d 591; Remuneration Planning Servs. Corp. v. Berg Brown, 151 A.D.2d 268) are inapposite, since the parties were not litigants subject to court rules of practice for purposes of the investigating disclosure defendant sought pursuant to the policy, and, in any event, there was a lack of compliance even under the more regulated strictures of CPLR article 31.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.