DENOYELLES v. GALLAGHER (2006)

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), entered December 8, 2005, as denied that branch of their motion which was to strike the answer pursuant to CPLR 3126, and the defendant cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same order as granted the plaintiffs leave to renew that branch of their motion which was to strike the answer after further discovery, and as granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for an award of costs against the defendant.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

 Actions should be resolved on their merits wherever possible, and the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter vested in the broad discretion of the trial court (see Pascarelli v. City of New York, 16 A.D.3d 472, 791 N.Y.S.2d 617;  Traina v. Taglienti, 6 A.D.3d 524, 774 N.Y.S.2d 391;  Espinal v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 806, 695 N.Y.S.2d 610).  “[T]he drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith” (Harris v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 663, 664, 622 N.Y.S.2d 289 [citations omitted];  see also Mendez v. City of New York, 7 A.D.3d 766, 767, 778 N.Y.S.2d 501;  Lestingi v. City of New York, 209 A.D.2d 384, 385, 618 N.Y.S.2d 731).

 Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was to strike the answer since there has not been “a clear showing” (Harris v. City of New York, supra at 664, 622 N.Y.S.2d 289) that the defendant's conduct, and in particular his late disclosure of certain medical records, was either willful, contumacious, or in bad faith.   The Supreme Court also properly assessed costs against the defendant since the late disclosure caused financial prejudice to the plaintiffs (see Riley v. ISS Intl. Serv. Sys., 304 A.D.2d 637, 757 N.Y.S.2d 593).

The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.