DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof striking the defendant's answer unless the appellant's representative appeared for a deposition and substituting therefor a provision precluding the appellant from offering testimony at trial unless its representative appears for a deposition at a time and place mutually agreeable to the parties, but in no event less than 30 days before trial, and otherwise denying the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements."
To invoke the drastic remedy of striking an answer, it must be shown that a defendant's failure to comply with a disclosure order was the result of willful, deliberate, and contumacious conduct (see, CPLR 3126; Solomon v. Horie Karate Dojo, 283 A.D.2d 480; Vancott v. Great Atl. Pac. Tea Co., 271 A.D.2d 438). No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy if the representative of the defendant Long Eyeland Industries, Inc., is not located and deposed before trial is to preclude the defendant's testimony at trial (see, Cianciolo v. Trism Specialized Carriers, 274 A.D.2d 369; Solomon v. Horie Karate Dojo, supra).
SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, FLORIO, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.