The willful and contumacious character of appellant's failure to disclose can be inferred from its year-long noncompliance with three separate court orders directing depositions and document production, coupled with inadequate excuses for these defaults (Mills v Ducille, 170 A.D.2d 657, 658; see also, Wolfson v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 141 A.D.2d 815). Appellant's motion to renew was properly denied, the only "new evidence" offered in support thereof being a deposition transcript that was available at the time of the original motion (Gulledge v Adams, 108 A.D.2d 950, 950-951). We read the order appealed from as simply precluding any testimony from the named witnesses and the offer in evidence of documents which were required to be produced.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.