Opinion
February 24, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Irving Aronin, J.).
It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to conclude that there was no willful misconduct justifying the drastic sanction of preclusion (see, e.g., Balsam v. Nicolosi Bldg. Co., 36 A.D.2d 533, 534), particularly given the lack of record evidence to support defendant's speculation that the records of the unidentified ophthalmologist will show plaintiff infant's hydrocephalus condition to be preexisting.
We have considered the remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.