DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
When a party's failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure is shown to be willful, contumacious, or in bad faith, dismissal of that party's pleading is within the broad discretion of the trial court ( see Vanalst v. City of New York, 302 A.D.2d 515; Gruber v. Central Truck Equip., 298 A.D.2d 360; Frias v. Fortini, 240 A.D.2d 467; cf. Hollymount Corp. v. Park Corp., 300 A.D.2d 444). Furthermore, the absence of an excuse for the delay in responding to court-ordered disclosure supports an inference that the failure to comply was willful ( see Frias v. Fortini, supra at 468). Here, the defendant's failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure, without sufficient excuse, was willful and contumacious. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in striking the answer.
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, TOWNES, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.