Loath as we are to interfere with the IAS Court's management of its calendar and although plaintiff's failure to provide responses to the disputed particulars violated the court's July 25, 1994 and February 15, 1995 orders, there is no showing that he did so deliberately, wilfully or contumaciously. In partial compliance, plaintiff did not indicate an unwillingness to respond, which would have necessitated a motion for a protective order, but verified that in the absence of discovery, he has no knowledge with which to provide the particulars demanded. Under such circumstances, dismissal of his claim was unnecessarily harsh and he should be afforded one last opportunity adequately to comply with defendants' demands.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.