DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the contention of the appellant, the defendant's attorney, the Supreme Court providently exercised its broad discretion, to which we accord substantial deference, in imposing a sanction upon him pursuant to CPLR 3126 for his conduct during disclosure ( see Zletz v. Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711, 713; Orner v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 305 A.D.2d 307, 309; Jaffe v. Hubbard, 299 A.D.2d 395; New v. Scores Entertainment, 255 A.D.2d 108; Taub v. Wulwick, 168 A.D.2d 492, 493; Miller v. Duffy, 126 A.D.2d 527, 528; Sawh v. Bridges, 120 A.D.2d 74, 77-78; cf. Bach v. City of New York, 304 A.D.2d 686).
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.