DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, directed the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, to dismiss the complaint against the nonmoving defendants is dismissed, as the plaintiffs did not seek leave to appeal from that portion of the order (see, CPLR 5701); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
A court may strike pleadings or parts of pleadings as a sanction against a party who "refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed" (CPLR 3126; see also, Kubacka v. Town of N. Hempstead, 240 A.D.2d 374, 375).
In the instant case, the appellants repeatedly delayed in responding to the respondents' discovery demands and requests for authorization, and any responses served were inadequate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the respondents' motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them (see, Ranfort v. Peak Tours, 250 A.D.2d 747; Amato v. County of Westchester, 243 A.D.2d 593; Acuri Sons, Inc. v. Alfonsi, 242 A.D.2d 313; Frias v. Fortini, 240 A.D.2d 467; Kubacka v. Town of N. Hempstead, supra; Garcia v. Kraniotakis, 232 A.D.2d 369, 370; Watson v. Esposito, 231 A.D.2d 512; Mills v. Ducille, 170 A.D.2d 657, 658).