Opinion
December 15, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.).
In light of the fact that plaintiff satisfactorily provided detailed answers to the vast majority of the interrogatories and, with regard to those few to which it was unable to be more specific, satisfactorily explained that the post-loss inventory percentage method of calculating damages, which both plaintiff's and defendant's adjusters utilized, precluded it from giving more detailed answers, there was no basis to strike the complaint. Indeed, absent is any evidence that plaintiff's failure to provide more details was willful or contumacious (see, Lull v Breiter, 127 A.D.2d 530, mod 129 A.D.2d 493). We also note that it was proper for Justice Schoenfeld to hear the motion to reargue Justice Ciparick's prior order since the case had been reassigned to Justice Schoenfeld, the new Justice presiding in said Part, prior to the date the reargument motion was heard (Billings v Berkshire Mut. Ins. Co., 133 A.D.2d 919, lv dismissed 70 N.Y.2d 1002; Dalrymple v King Community Unity Health Ctr., 127 A.D.2d 69).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.