Opinion
May 16, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Christ, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed for the willful failure to obey an order of disclosure is a matter lying within the sound discretion of the court (see, Berman v. Szpilzinger, 180 A.D.2d 612; Miller v Duffy, 126 A.D.2d 527). Despite having been given numerous opportunities to comply with the court's discovery orders, the plaintiff failed to do so, offering vague excuses such as that the information requested "ha[d] yet to be received", "due to the complicated and convoluted problems associated with the incident". We find these excuses to be unsatisfactory, and conclude that dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) was entirely proper and not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, Adams v. Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., 188 A.D.2d 630; Kirkland v. Community Hosp., 187 A.D.2d 566; Bender Bodnar v. Nankin, 186 A.D.2d 524; Kogan v. Royal Indem. Co., 179 A.D.2d 399). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.