In an action arising out of an alleged sexual assault of plaintiff on defendants' now-defunct discotheque premises, the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in striking defendants' answers for their willful noncompliance with seven disclosure orders issued over an approximately two-year period.
While the striking of a pleading pursuant to CPLR 3126 for failure to comply with an order of disclosure is an extreme and drastic remedy that should be employed sparingly, its use here was eminently proper where it clearly appears that defendants' default was deliberate and contumacious (Arantes v Gotham Taxi Corp., 116 A.D.2d 539, 540).
Defendants' successive failures to respond, in whole or in part, to plaintiff's discovery requests, as well as the court-ordered enforcement thereof, constituted the type of dilatory and obstructive conduct which justified striking their answers (see, Zletz v Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711, 713; Horowitz v Camp Cedarhurst Town Country Day School, 119 A.D.2d 548, 550).
We have reviewed defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.