The willful and contumacious character of plaintiffs' failure to produce the missing pages is evident from their noncompliance with three court orders, the last of which specifically directed them to produce the subject pages, their failure to respond to correspondence from defendants regarding the missing pages and their failure to offer any credible excuse for these defaults ( see, Glasburgh v. Port Auth., 193 A.D.2d 441; Mills v. Ducille, 170 A.D.2d 657, 658). Under these circumstances, we find that plaintiffs should be precluded from introducing the documents into evidence. While preclusion is obviously a harsh remedy, it is clearly warranted where repeated, legitimate demands on the part of an adversary, as well as orders of the court, are met with dissimulation rather than compliance.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.