Opinion
Submitted October 17, 2001.
November 5, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated December 22, 2000, which granted the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint for his failure to comply with court-ordered discovery.
Mallilo Grossman, Flushing, N.Y. (Marie-Fabienne F. DeCastro of counsel), for appellant.
Malapero Prisco, New York, N.Y. (Anthony J. Centone of counsel), for respondents.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"To invoke the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, the court must determine that the party's failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful, deliberate, and contumacious conduct or its equivalent (see, CPLR 3216; Harris v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 663, 664; Lestingi v. City of New York, 209 A.D.2d 384)" (Martignetti v. Ricevuto, 271 A.D.2d 508, 509). The willful and contumacious character of a party's conduct can be inferred from his or her repeated failures to comply with disclosure, coupled with inadequate excuses for those defaults (see, Kingsley v. Kantor, 265 A.D.2d 529; Brady v. County of Nassau, 234 A.D.2d 408; Garcia v. Kraniotakis, 232 A.D.2d 369; Mills v. Ducille, 170 A.D.2d 657). The determination whether to strike a pleading lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court (see, Zletz v. Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711; Kubacka v. Town of N. Hempstead, 240 A.D.2d 374).
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to strike the complaint for the plaintiff's repeated and inadequately explained failure to appear for court-ordered physical examinations.
SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.