The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in striking defendants' answer for their noncompliance with the prior so-ordered stipulation directing production of all documents pursuant to demands to which no objections had been made, and with the prior court orders ruling on defendants' claims of privilege and directing production of nonprivileged documents. Defendants' service of objections to various demands on the ground of relevancy and overbreadth, after these orders were issued and more than a year after plaintiffs' service of their notice of discovery, was properly rejected by the IAS Court as an untimely and obstructive attempt to avoid previously ordered discovery ( see, CPLR 3122 [a]; Zletz v. Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711; Kutner v. Feidan, Dweck Sladkus, 223 A.D.2d 488, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 802; Berman v. Szpilzinger, 180 A.D.2d 612). We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.