Opinion
October 5, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The judgment entered May 7, 1997, in Action No. 2 having been reversed and the complaint having been reinstated in the companion appeal of the plaintiff in that action ( see, DeAngelis v. Korea First Bank, 254 A.D.2d 243 [decided herewith]), we proceed now to the merits of this appeal.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the cross motion of Vincent R. DeAngelis to dismiss the complaint in Action No. 2 insofar as asserted against him for failure to comply with discovery ( see, Falco v. Caterpillar, Inc., 248 A.D.2d 352; Lamagna v. New York State Assn. for Help of Retarded Children, 222 A.D.2d 559). The appellant failed to establish that the plaintiff engaged in willful, deliberate, and contumacious conduct ( see, Parish Constr. Corp. v. Frank Tile, 215 A.D.2d 545; Ahroni v. City of New York, 175 A.D.2d 789).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and McGinity, JJ., concur.