Opinion
March 22, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, limited the defendant's inquiry of the plaintiff at the further deposition, is dismissed without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements.
"An order denying a motion to compel a witness to answer questions propounded at an examination before trial is akin to a ruling made in the course of the examination itself and as such is not appealable as of right" ( Matter of Heller, 216 A.D.2d 393, 394, quoting Ewell v. Moore, 133 A.D.2d 67). We decline to grant such relief sua sponte in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Therefore, the appeal from that portion of the order which, in effect, refused to compel the plaintiff to answer certain questions at the further deposition is dismissed.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to strike the complaint ( see, Frias v. Fortini, 240 A.D.2d 467).
Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.