Opinion
March 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, First Department (Parness, J.P., Miller and Glen, JJ.).
We agree with Appellate Term that defendant Toothsavers' unintentional default was properly vacated upon a showing of a meritorious defense that it was not responsible for any of plaintiff's dental care and treatment. As the Civil Court pointed out, it is the policy of the courts to favor dispositions on the merits (see, Lirit Corp. v. Laufer Vision World, 84 A.D.2d 704). Summary judgment as against defendant Lynn based on his failure to comply with a conditional preclusion order directing his production of certain documents was properly denied for failure to show that his lateness in producing the documents was willful (see, Dauria v. City of New York, 127 A.D.2d 459, 460), or even, we would add, that he would be unable to defend the action were records precluded. Plaintiff's appeal from the November 30, 1992 order was properly deemed to be from an order denying argument, and was thus properly dismissed as nonappealable (Rivera v Cambridge Mut. Ins. Co., 136 A.D.2d 688, 689). We have considered plaintiff's remaining points and find them without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.