Ordered that the order is reversed, with one bill of costs to the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, the motions are granted, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants.
Since the plaintiffs failed to comply with two court orders compelling disclosure, and failed to respond to the appellants' motions to dismiss the complaint for such failures, we find that the plaintiffs' conduct to be willful and contumacious. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in failing to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellants (see, Nudelman v New York City Tr. Auth., 172 A.D.2d 503; Pietrowski v City of New York, 166 A.D.2d 423; Tschernina v Embanque Corp., 161 A.D.2d 585, 586-587; Rubin v Pan Am. World Airways, 128 A.D.2d 765). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.