Given the circumstances intervening between the initial demand for disclosure by plaintiff-appellant, including defendant's illness which was documented by a physician and substitution for defendant's decedent, we cannot say that the motion court abused its discretion in evaluating such factors and in denying plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant's decedent's answer. Although, CPLR 3126 provides for the imposition of sanctions for a deliberate or willful failure to comply with discovery (Jackson v. City of New York, 185 A.D.2d 768), it generally is within the discretion of the motion court to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed against an offending party (Lowitt v. Burton I. Korelitz, M.D., P.C., 152 A.D.2d 506, 507). It would not be appropriate, at bar, for this Court to substitute its discretion for that of the Justice sitting in the IAS Court. (See, Sawh v. Bridges, 120 A.D.2d 74, 77, appeal dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 852.)

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Rubin, JJ.