Opinion
April 4, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The appellants, having long failed to seek enforcement of their notices to examine two of the respondents, argue that the Supreme Court erred in denying their motion, inter alia, to strike the plaintiffs' note of issue on the ground that discovery was not complete. Richardson v Bloomingdale's ( 157 A.D.2d 585) illustrates the lack of merit to the appellants' contention: "Cognizant as we are of the difficulties encountered by IAS courts in supervising the preparation of the cases assigned to them for trial and understanding the court's reluctance to reward movant's inaction * * * we find no improvident exercise of discretion in its ruling" (see also, Di Maria v Coordinated Ranches, 114 A.D.2d 397). Nor is there any merit to the appellants' further contention that the court improvidently exercised its discretion by refusing to allow consolidation or joint trial of any action that might be brought by them pursuant to RPAPL article 15 more than approximately three months after the present case was certified ready for trial (see, CPLR 602; White v Smith, 117 A.D.2d 734). Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.