Opinion
January 25, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Although "[t]he penalty of striking a pleading for failure to comply with an order of disclosure (CPLR 3126) is an extreme one" (Delaney v. Automated Bread Corp., 110 A.D.2d 677, 678), the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in striking the defendant wife's answer in the instant case. The defendant wife and her attorney demonstrated a pattern of continuing delay and neglect. Despite repeated demands by the plaintiff husband, motion practice, court orders, and conferencing with the court over a two-year period, the defendant wife failed to provide a net worth statement and failed to provide any reasonable excuse for her continued delay. Under the circumstances, therefore, it was appropriate for the court to grant the plaintiff husband relief under CPLR 3126 (see, Berman v. Szpilzinger, 180 A.D.2d 612; Schneider v. Barash, 170 A.D.2d 319; Fucci v. Fucci, 166 A.D.2d 551).
Although the record is sparse, we find that there was sufficient evidence adduced at the inquest to support the court's award of marital property. Furthermore, at the conclusion of the inquest, the court set forth and discussed the statutory factors that it had considered in distributing the marital property. Accordingly, the court's award shall not be disturbed (see, Otto v. Otto, 150 A.D.2d 57). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.