SELAMAJ v. CITY OF NEW YORK

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the drastic remedy of striking an answer is inappropriate absent a clear showing that the failure to comply with discovery is willful, contumacious, or in bad faith ( see, CPLR 3126; Parish Constr. Corp. v. Franlo Tile, 215 A.D.2d 545; Harris v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 663). In this case, the plaintiffs failed to make such a showing. Notably, the defendants' delay in complying with a pre-calendar order was relatively minor and did not cause the plaintiffs to suffer any prejudice ( see, Hocevar v. Honig Indus. Diamond Wheel, 172 A.D.2d 588).

Bracken, J.P., Ritter, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.