In this action to set aside a transaction under the Debtor and Creditor Law, the court properly found that the law firm of Kase Druker initially failed to meet its burden of demonstrating entitlement to summary judgment ( Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562) because of issues of fact concerning the subject fee payment, the services rendered, and the relationship of the parties. However, this appeal is rendered academic in light of our disposition of the appeal from the later order.
Originally styled as a request for dismissal for want of prosecution (CPLR 3216), which would not have been on the merits, defendants' motion was recast, at the court's suggestion, as one for dismissal for refusal to comply with orders of disclosure, under CPLR 3126 ( Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118, 123) and the Commercial Part Rules. In light of plaintiff's long-standing patterns of default, lateness and failure to comply with court orders, which gave rise to an inference of willful and contumacious conduct ( Wilson v. West Hempstead Gens. Football Club, 286 AD2d 438; Martin v. Brooks, 270 AD2d 538), the court appropriately exercised its discretion in dismissing the action against all defendants, and directing entry of judgment accordingly.
We have considered the remaining arguments of Kase Druker as to summary judgment and plaintiff as to dismissal, and find them without merit.