PEARL v. PEARL

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well settled that a court has broad discretion in determining the nature and degree of the penalty to be imposed where a party has refused to comply with discovery demands ( see, CPLR 3126; Robustelli v. Robustelli, 262 A.D.2d 390 [2d Dept., June 7, 1999; Maillard v. Maillard, 243 A.D.2d 448). Here, the record clearly establishes the defendant's repeated failure to comply with prior orders of the Supreme Court for discovery was willful and contumacious. Thus, the defendant was properly precluded from submitting evidence relating to his finances and financial issues of fact were properly deemed to be resolved in favor of the plaintiff ( see, Brady v. County of Nassau, 234 A.D.2d 408; Reed v. Reed, 93 A.D.2d 105).

In addition, contrary to the defendant's contention, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court properly selected a date as close to trial as practicable for valuation of the marital property ( see, Sagarin v. Sagarin, 251 A.D.2d 396; Marcus v. Marcus, 137 A.D.2d 131; Wegman v. Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'BRIEN, J.P., SANTUCCI, ALTMAN, and KRAUSMAN, JJ., concur.