Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to CPLR 3126, "[a] court may strike an answer as a sanction if a defendant `refuses to obey an order for disclosure or willfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed `"( Mazza v Seneca, 72 AD3d 754, 754, quoting CPLR 3126). The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see CPLR 3126; Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122-123; Bernal v Singh, 72 AD3d 716). The drastic remedy of striking a pleading is not appropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful and contumacious ( see CPLR 3126; Kyung Soo Kim v Goldmine Realty, Inc., 73 AD3d 709; Moray v City of Yonkers, 72 AD3d 766).
Here, there was no such clear showing that the defendants' conduct was willful and contumacious ( see Dank v Sears Holding Mgt. Corp., 69 AD3d 557). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendants' answer.