Opinion
May 11, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.).
The willful and contumacious character of appellant's failure to disclose can be inferred from its year-long noncompliance with three separate court orders directing depositions and document production, coupled with inadequate excuses for these defaults (Mills v Ducille, 170 A.D.2d 657, 658; see also, Wolfson v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 141 A.D.2d 815). Appellant's motion to renew was properly denied, the only "new evidence" offered in support thereof being a deposition transcript that was available at the time of the original motion (Gulledge v Adams, 108 A.D.2d 950, 950-951). We read the order appealed from as simply precluding any testimony from the named witnesses and the offer in evidence of documents which were required to be produced.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.