Opinion
March 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Review of the record does not reveal that the defendant Caterpillar, Inc. (hereinafter Caterpillar) engaged in willful and contumacious conduct, or exercised bad faith in responding to the plaintiffs' interrogatories (see, Parish Constr. Corp. v. Franlo Tile, 215 A.D.2d 545; Vatel v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 524; Nudelman v. New York City Tr. Auth., 172 A.D.2d 503). Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion, inter alia, to strike Caterpillar's answer or preclude it from proffering certain evidence at trial (see, Mayers v. Consolidated Charcoal Co., 154 A.D.2d 577; Matter of Cullen, 143 A.D.2d 746).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.