In this action, commenced in 1981 and with a long tortured procedural history, plaintiff seeks, inter alia, to establish a partnership interest in several restaurant businesses operated by defendants, an accounting and damages. On defendants' motions the complaint was dismissed because of plaintiff's repeated failure to answer one interrogatory, consisting of several subparts, in a 63-page set of interrogatories. While, concededly, the interrogatory relates to a matter that is, at best, only peripherally related to the issues, no less than four different courts have, in effect, held that plaintiff must answer. Thus, his obduracy cannot be legally justified. In the circumstances, however, we believe that the sanction of dismissal was draconian. Thus, we modify to afford plaintiff, on the conditions stated, one final opportunity to respond.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Kassal, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.