Plaintiff's numerous and unexplained failures to comply with longstanding and still outstanding discovery obligations justify the inference that her noncompliance with discovery has been willful and contumacious (see, Cano v. BLF Realty Holding Corp., 243 A.D.2d 390; Glasburgh v. Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey, 193 A.D.2d 441). Accordingly, the IAS court properly precluded plaintiff, pursuant to CPLR 3126(2), from introducing or from relying upon the aforementioned evidence in her case against Mystic.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.