Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiffs repeated noncompliance with court orders directing it to produce cancelled checks demonstrating its labor costs in connection with a construction contract, together with inadequate excuses therefor, warranted a finding that the plaintiff's noncompliance was willful and contumacious ( see Reid v Schoenthal, 288 AD2d 203; Frias v Fortini, 240 AD2d 467; Garcia v Kraniotakis, 232 AD2d 369).
Upon preclusion of this evidence, the plaintiff would have been unable to make a prima facie showing of its damages. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see Callaghan v Curtis, 48 AD3d 501; Trataros Constr., Inc. v New York City School Constr. Auth., 46 AD3d 872; Contarino v North Shore Univ. Hosp. at Glen Cove, 13 AD3d 571; cf. Anderson v RC Dolner, Inc., 43 AD3d 837).