Opinion
June 13, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Clemente, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff's delay in serving a supplemental bill of particulars did not entail the willful or contumacious violation of a court order. The plaintiff was in need of additional pretrial discovery in order to be able to frame an adequate bill of particulars. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court, Kings County, did not err in refusing to impose the harsh sanction of dismissal (CPLR 3126; see, Corinno Civetta Constr. Corp. v City of New York, 67 N.Y.2d 297, rearg denied sub nom. Honeywell, Inc. v City of New York, 68 N.Y.2d 753; cf., Zletz v Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711). Bracken, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.