Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Considering all of the circumstances surrounding the appellants' inordinate procrastination in making full pretrial disclosure, including their noncompliance with multiple prior orders, we conclude that the order striking the appellants' answer (CPLR 3126) was properly made on the exercise of the "broad discretion of the trial court" (Zletz v. Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711, 713, citing Reynolds Sec. v. Underwriters Bank Trust Co., 44 N.Y.2d 568; Laverne v. Incorporated Vil. of Laurel Hollow, 18 N.Y.2d 635, 637-638; Battaglia v. Hofmeister, 100 A.D.2d 833, 834; see also, Herrera v. City of New York, 238 A.D.2d 475; Sindeband v. McCleod, 226 A.D.2d 623; Town of Southampton v. Salten, 186 A.D.2d 796; 7A Carmody-Wait 2d, N.Y. Prac § 42:494).
Bracken, J. P., O'Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.