| Quinones v Long Is. Jewish Med. Ctr. |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08923 [90 AD3d 632] |
| December 6, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Dora H. Quinones, Appellant, v Long Island JewishMedical Center et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Shaub, Ahmuty, Citrin & Spratt, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Christopher Simone and LenaHolubnyczyj of counsel), for respondents.
In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the plaintiff appeals from an orderof the Supreme Court, Queens County (O'Donoghue, J.), dated May 14, 2010, which granted thatbranch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The nature and degree of the sanction to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 iswithin the broad discretion of the motion court (see Zletz v Wetanson, 67 NY2d 711, 713[1986]; Pirro Group, LLC v One PointSt., Inc., 71 AD3d 654, 655 [2010]; Novick v DeRosa, 51 AD3d 885 [2008]; Martin v City of New York, 46 AD3d635 [2007]; Bomzer v Parke-Davis,Div. of Warner Lambert Co., 41 AD3d 522 [2007]). "The striking of a pleading may beappropriate where there is a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands iswillful and contumacious" (McArthur vNew York City Hous. Auth., 48 AD3d 431, 431 [2008]; see Workman v Town of Southampton,69 AD3d 619, 620 [2010]; Northfield Ins. Co. v Model Towing & Recovery, 63 AD3d 808,809 [2009]).
Here, the plaintiff's willful and contumacious conduct can be inferred from her repeatedfailures, despite the defendants' requests, to provide authorizations for trial and expert witnessdisclosure, and the absence of any reasonable excuse for these failures (see Workman v Townof Southampton, 69 AD3d at 620; Novick v DeRosa, 51 AD3d 885 [2008]; Suazo-Alvarez v Nordlaw, LLC, 48AD3d 670 [2008]; McArthur vNew York City Hous. Auth., 48 AD3d 431 [2008]; Horne v Swimquip, Inc., 36 AD3d 859, 861 [2007]; Powell v Cipollaro, 34 AD3d 551[2006]; Devito v J & J Towing, Inc.,17 AD3d 624, 625 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaintpursuant to CPLR 3126. Dickerson, J.P., Eng, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.