ROBUSTELLI v. ROBUSTELLI

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

"In order to invoke the drastic remedy of preclusion, the court must determine that the offending party's lack of cooperation with disclosure was willful, deliberate, and contumacious" ( Maillard v. Maillard, 243 A.D.2d 448, 449; see, CPLR 3126; Vatel v. City of New York, 208 A.D.2d 524). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in precluding the appellant from introducing evidence as to his finances at trial ( see, Maillard v. Maillard, supra; Brady v. County of Nassau, 234 A.D.2d 408; Kivo v. Kivo, 193 A.D.2d 585). The absence of any excuse for the defendant's delay in responding to the plaintiffs discovery demands, and his failure to object to the demands, supports the inference that the defendant's conduct was willful ( see, Brady v. County of Nassau, supra).