Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint as against the respondents. The plaintiffs' failure to comply with previous discovery orders, considered in conjunction with their history of resisting disclosure, fully supports the court's exercise of discretion in striking the plaintiffs' complaint as to the respondents ( see, Kaplan v. Elkind, 208 A.D.2d 683; Bigman v. Dime Sav. Bank, 181 A.D.2d 648). The dismissal is justified based on the plaintiffs' repeated lack of responses to the respondents' demands for disclosure and the plaintiffs' failure to timely and fully comply with the court orders issued enforcing those demands ( see, Zletz v. Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711, 713; Wolfson v. Nassau County Med. Ctr., 141 A.D.2d 815; see also, Polito v. DeTomaso, 208 A.D.2d 912; Mills v. Ducille, 170 A.D.2d 657, 658; Bigman v. Dime Sav. Bank, supra; Sawh v. Bridges, 120 A.D.2d 74, 78).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Friedmann, JJ., concur.