DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 is a matter generally left to the discretion of the Supreme Court (see Kingsley v. Kantor, 265 A.D.2d 529; Espinal v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 806). However, to invoke the drastic remedy of striking a pleading, or of preclusion, a court must determine that the party's failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful, deliberate, and contumacious conduct or its equivalent (see Patterson v. New York City Health and Hosps. Corp., 284 A.D.2d 516; Cianciolo v. Trism Specialized Carriers, 274 A.D.2d 369). Here, there was no showing of such willful, deliberate, and contumacious conduct. Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion.
SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, LUCIANO and MASTRO, JJ., concur.