Opinion
Argued December 13, 1999
February 17, 2000
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for negligence and false arrest, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 8, 1 999, which denied his motion, in effect, to strike the defendants' answer based on their failure to comply with his discovery requests.
Ruben Segarra, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Edward F.X. Hart and Kathleen J. Cahill of counsel), for respondents.
DANIEL W. JOY, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well established that the drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see, CPLR 3126 N.Y.CPLR; Smith v. Bynum, 260 A.D.2d 626). In this case, the plaintiff failed to make such a showing.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit.