Opinion
May 18, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.),
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The drastic remedy of striking a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure should be granted only where the conduct of the resisting party is shown to be willful, contumacious, or in bad faith. Where a party disobeys a court order and by his or her conduct frustrates the disclosure scheme provided by the CPLR, dismissal of a pleading is within the broad discretion of the trial court ( see, Frias v. Fortini, 240 A.D.2d 467; Kubacka v. Town of N. Hempstead, 240 A.D.2d 374). Furthermore, the absence of an excuse for the delay in responding to discovery demands, and the delaying party's failure to object to the demands, supports an inference that the failure to comply was willful ( see, Frias v. Fortini, supra). Here, the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the failure to timely comply with the March 28, 1996, preliminary conference order. Moreover, the plaintiffs' counsel failed to appear at three court conferences; despite being informed in writing of the last two conference dates. Such failure indicates willful and contumacious conduct ( see, Yin Kuen Chan Tang v. Hong Kong Chinese Herbal Co., 235 A.D.2d 282). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the complaint.
Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.