Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The record does not indicate that the plaintiff's failure to list the identities of a number of witnesses was willful or contumacious. Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to preclude and/or strike the testimony of these witnesses (see, Guillen v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.2d 506; Burton v New York City Hous. Auth., 191 A.D.2d 669; DeJesus v Finnegan, 137 A.D.2d 649; Bermudez v Laminates Unlimited, 134 A.D.2d 314).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Thompson, JJ., concur.