ANDRUSZEWSKI v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and the Psychological Corporation, Intervenors-Respondents. (1998)

 In this personal injury action arising out of an automobile collision, defendant, Angelo J. Cantello, moved for an order precluding the testimony of plaintiff's treating psychologists, Drs. Appel and Blumetti, on the ground that plaintiff had failed to produce their complete files on plaintiff.   Supreme Court conditionally ordered the preclusion of their testimony unless they produced, within 30 days, their complete patient files, including certain enumerated tests that had been administered to plaintiff, along with test books, instructions, manuals, raw test data, questions, answers, profiles and means of scoring the tests.   In response, plaintiff produced only some records from Dr. Blumetti and none from Dr. Appel.   The court thereafter issued an order precluding the psychologists from testifying and precluding plaintiff from using their files at trial.   We affirm.

 Trial courts have broad discretion in supervising disclosure (see, Matter of U.S. Pioneer Elecs. Corp. [Nikko Elec. Corp. of Am.], 47 N.Y.2d 914, 916, 419 N.Y.S.2d 484, 393 N.E.2d 478;  see also, Allen v. Crowell-Collier Publ. Co., 21 N.Y.2d 403, 406, 288 N.Y.S.2d 449, 235 N.E.2d 430), and, absent a clear abuse of that discretion, a trial court's exercise of such authority should not be disturbed (Xerox Corp. v. Town of Webster, 206 A.D.2d 935, 616 N.Y.S.2d 119;  PCB Piezotronics v. Change, 163 A.D.2d 829, 558 N.Y.S.2d 362;  Nitz v. Prudential-Bache Sec., 102 A.D.2d 914, 915, 477 N.Y.S.2d 479).   The court properly determined that plaintiff's failure to comply with the preclusion order was the “result of willful, deliberate, and contumacious conduct or its equivalent” (Vatel v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 524, 525, 617 N.Y.S.2d 61;  see, CPLR 3126[2];  Beard v. Peconic Foam Insulation Corp., 149 A.D.2d 555, 556, 540 N.Y.S.2d 258).   The fact that plaintiff's doctors were uncooperative in producing reports does not relieve plaintiff of her burden of providing defendant with the documentation necessary to prepare a defense (see, Lisec v. Abrams, 112 A.D.2d 145, 145-146, 491 N.Y.S.2d 58).

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

MEMORANDUM: