Opinion
May 4, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Patterson, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the record amply supports the Supreme Court's conclusion that the appellant's untimely and incomplete compliance with multiple disclosure orders was not supported by a reasonable excuse and constituted dilatory conduct. Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in imposing a monetary sanction against the appellant for engaging in frivolous conduct within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (c) (2) (see generally, Intercontinental Credit Corp. Div. v. Roth, 78 N.Y.2d 306; First Nationwide Bank v. Felberman, 239 A.D.2d 385; Weiss v. Weiss, 228 A.D.2d 366; Jackson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 227 A.D.2d 181).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.