Opinion
May 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The record does not indicate that the plaintiff's failure to list the identities of a number of witnesses was willful or contumacious. Thus, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to preclude and/or strike the testimony of these witnesses (see, Guillen v New York City Tr. Auth., 192 A.D.2d 506; Burton v New York City Hous. Auth., 191 A.D.2d 669; DeJesus v Finnegan, 137 A.D.2d 649; Bermudez v Laminates Unlimited, 134 A.D.2d 314).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Thompson, JJ., concur.