Ordered that the order dated February 2, 1994, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated June 15, 1994, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to unconditionally grant their motion to strike the defendant's answer for failure to comply with their discovery requests. Rather, the record adequately establishes that the defendant made good faith attempts to satisfy the plaintiffs' discovery requests, and the court therefore acted properly in affording the defendant additional time to comply (see, Harris v. City of New York, 211 A.D.2d 663 [decided herewith]).
Similarly unavailing is the plaintiffs' contention that the court erred in denying their renewed motion to strike the defendant's answer. The record sufficiently establishes that the defendant adequately complied with the plaintiffs' discovery demands, and that any lack of compliance was due to the unavailability of the requested material rather than willful, contumacious, or bad faith conduct on the part of the defendant (see, Lestingi v. City of New York, 209 A.D.2d 384; Arena v. City of New York, 196 A.D.2d 471; Dauria v. City of New York, 127 A.D.2d 459). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Altman, Hart and Friedmann, JJ., concur.