BARTH v. CITY OF NEW YORK

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that "the determination whether or not to strike a pleading lies within the sound discretion of the court" (Ploski v. Riverwood Owners Corp., 284 A.D.2d 316, 317). However, "[w]henever possible, actions should be resolved on the merits" (Mohammed v. 919 Park Place Owners Corp., 245 A.D.2d 351, 352). Accordingly, "[t]he drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery demands is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith" (Garcia v. First Spanish Baptist Church of Islip, 259 A.D.2d 465). Contrary to the plaintiff's contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion. The defendants New York City Board of Education and Abiela Contracting, Inc., generally provided the requested discovery and the record does not clearly demonstrate that their failure to fully comply with discovery was willful, contumacious, or in bad faith (see Payne v. Rouse Corp., 269 A.D.2d 510).

SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, GOLDSTEIN and FRIEDMANN, JJ., concur.