The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in directing a further physical examination of plaintiff Byron Brown despite plaintiff's filing of a note of issue and certificate of readiness, and despite defendants' failure to comply with a previous order to conduct the examination. In light of the new injuries alleged in the supplemental bills of particulars, submitted more than three years after the accident occurred, defendants would have been seriously prejudiced if they had not been afforded an opportunity to reexamine Mr. Brown ( see, Law v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 540; Dominguez v. Manhattan Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 168 A.D.2d 376). The motion court also properly denied plaintiff's motion for costs and sanctions. While defendants were not completely forthcoming in their motion to strike plaintiff's supplemental bills of particulars, the court was made aware of their omissions at oral argument. Moreover, it cannot be said that the motion to strike was completely without merit in law or fact or made primarily to harass ( see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1). Nor, in light of counsel's failure on two occasions to comply with the motion court's directives that plaintiff be produced for examination, can we say that the motion court improvidently exercised its discretion ( see, Hanson v. City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 217) in eventually determining to strike plaintiff's supplemental bills of particulars. Finally, in view of the foregoing, it is clear that plaintiff, in seeking a stay of trial, failed to make the requisite showing that there was a likelihood of his prevailing on the merits of the subject issues on appeal or that the equities preponderated in his favor.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach and Tom, JJ.