Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Alan L. Lebowitz, J.H.O.), entered October 30, 2007. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion, inter alia, to compel the deposition of defendant and, in effect, granted the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking a protective order.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed without costs, plaintiff's motion granted to the extent that defendant is ordered to appear for a deposition within 30 days of the order entered hereon and the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking a protective order denied.

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, plaintiff moved, inter alia, for an order compelling the deposition of defendant and conditionally striking defendant's answer or precluding defendant from offering evidence at trial in the event of defendant's noncompliance. Defendant opposed the motion and cross-moved for an order compelling plaintiff to respond to defendant's discovery demands and for a protective order. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the court denied plaintiff's motion and, in effect, granted the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking a protective order. This appeal by plaintiff ensued.

CPLR 3101 (a) provides for full disclosure of all matter "material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof." Parties to an action are entitled to reasonable discovery "of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity" (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406 [1968]). In view of the foregoing, the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, plaintiff's motion is granted to the extent of compelling defendant to appear for a deposition, and the branch of defendant's cross motion seeking a protective order is denied (see Connely v Allstate Ins. Co., 20 Misc 3d 145[A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51874[A] [App [*2]Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]).

Pesce, P.J., 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 believe the decision should also note that the deposition of defendant by plaintiff should be held only after plaintiff completes defendant's interrogatories as previously ordered by the court below.
Decision Date: June 23, 2009