DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as granted that branch of the motion which was to impose a sanction on the plaintiff's attorney is dismissed, as the plaintiff is not aggrieved by that portion of the order ( see CPLR 5511; Scopelliti v. Town of New Castle, 92 N.Y.2d 944; O'Connell v. Kerson, 291 A.D.2d 386; cf. Matter of Tagliaferri v. Weiler, N.Y.3d [Feb. 12, 2004]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
It is well settled that the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 for a party's failure to disclose lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see Ordonez v. Guerra, 295 A.D.2d 325; Lavi v. Lavi, 256 A.D.2d 602; Kubacka v. Town of N. Hempstead, 240 A.D.2d 374). The plaintiff engaged in a pattern of conduct over a period of time which evidenced an intent to willfully and contumaciously obstruct and delay the progress of disclosure.
The plaintiff's resistance to disclosure commenced at the time of the defendants' first discovery requests and continued for several years. Indeed, the plaintiff's recalcitrance in providing discovery necessitated the defendants moving three times to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiff's refusal to disclose. Since the plaintiff engaged in a pattern of "willful disobedience of a specific notice for discovery" ( Ordonez v. Guerra, supra at 329; see American Reliance Ins. Co. v. National Gen. Ins. Co., 174 A.D.2d 591), dismissal under CPLR 3126 was warranted.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, KRAUSMAN and COZIER, JJ., concur.