Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The record demonstrates that the plaintiffs failed to fully comply with court orders directing full discovery, and offered inadequate excuses for their noncompliance. Moreover, even after the court ordered full compliance with the defendants' discovery demands, the plaintiffs still delayed the production of certain items for several years after the order was issued. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiffs' conduct was willful and permissibly exercised its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 (3) (see, Glasburgh v. Port Auth., 193 A.D.2d 441; Wolfson v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., 141 A.D.2d 815; Bigman v. Dime Sav. Bank, 181 A.D.2d 648). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.