Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Generally, the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 against a party who refuses to comply with court-ordered discovery is a matter within the discretion of the court ( see CPLR 3126; KM v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 122; Jaffe v Hubbard, 299 AD2d 395, 396). Absent an improvident exercise of discretion, the determination to impose sanctions for conduct that frustrates the purpose of the CPLR should not be disturbed ( see Mahopac Ophthalmology, PC. v Taraseuich, 21 AD3d 351, 352; Jaffe v Hubbard, 299 AD2d at 396, supra; Miller v Duffy, 126 AD2d 527, 528).
The plaintiff failed to timely and adequately comply with court-ordered discovery, and failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was, inter alia, for a conditional order of preclusion ( see CPLR 3126).
The plaintiffs remaining contention does not require reversal.