Helen Blessin

In a medical malpractice action, defendant Nyack Hospital appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.), dated February 8, 1982, as, upon its motion, inter alia, to dismiss plaintiffs complaint for failure to respond to interrogatories, directed plaintiff to provide further answers to interrogatories signed by plaintiff and under oath. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff is directed to serve her answer to the interrogatories within 30 days after service upon her of a copy of the order to be made hereon, with notice of entry. If plaintiff is currently without sufficient knowledge to answer any of the interrogatories, she may so state under oath and serve a supplemental response to those interrogatories promptly upon obtaining knowledge thereof, but in any event, not later than 30 days before the date of the trial. On or about June 11, 1981, appellant served interrogatories upon plaintiff. Plaintiff neither moved for a protective order pursuant to CPLR 3103, nor objected to the interrogatories pursuant to CPLR 3133. By notice of motion dated July 24, 1981, appellant moved, pursuant to CPLR 3126, to dismiss the complaint for plaintiffs failure to comply with requested discovery, including the failure to serve answers to its interrogatories, or, in the alternative, to compel disclosure. In opposition to the motion, plaintiff submitted copies of her answers to the written interrogatories. The answers were verified by plaintiffs attorney. On November 2, 1981, Special Term denied appellants motion with respect to plaintiffs failure to answer the interrogatories, without prejudice to a further motion by it as to the sufficiency of the responses to the interrogatories. Thereafter, by notice of motion dated November 9, 1981, appellant moved for an order pursuant to CPLR 3124 and 3126, (1) dismissing the complaint for plaintiffs willful failure to respond to interrogatories, or (2) compelling plaintiff to provide further answers to the interrogatories. In addition to arguing, inter alia, that plaintiffs answers were totally non-responsive, appellant contended that verification of the answers by plaintiffs attorney, rather than plaintiff herself, was improper. Special Term granted appellants motion to the extent of directing plaintiff "to serve further answers to interrogatories signed by the plaintiff in writing and under oath." The court indicated, inter alia, that "answers to the interrogatories should be made by the plaintiff herself, if necessary, with the assistance of her attorney following consultation." This order does not merely require plaintiff to verify the answers to the interrogatories already served by her attorney, but requires plaintiff to fully respond to all interrogatories served. We note that the answers to Interrogatory Nos. 13 through 26, specifically challenged at Special Term by appellant, were either totally non-responsive or conclusory and general in nature. Such responses do not satisfy the purpose of interrogatories, which is to obtain evidence (see Lubell v Work Wear Corp., 82 Misc. 2d 1000, 1002, affd 86 Misc. 2d 1001). Plaintiff, having failed to timely object to the propriety of the interrogatories, is now foreclosed from challenging the interrogatories, except as to requests for matter privileged under CPLR 3101 (see Lane -- Real Estate Dept. Store v Ziv Chestnut Realty Corp., 76 A.D.2d 902). Since none of the interrogatories request privileged matter, plaintiff must respond to them with the specifically demanded by appellant. Damiani, J.P., Lazer, Gulotta and OConnor, JJ., concur.