Opinion
January 25, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joseph Teresi, J.).
Defendants' disobedience of a series of court orders directing the production of documentary material and the appearance of the individual defendant for deposition constituted precisely the sort of dilatory and obstructive, and thus contumacious, conduct warranting the striking of their answers ( see, Zletz v Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711; Seamon v Apel, 191 A.D.2d 406; Pan World Constr. Corp. v 791 Park Ave. Corp., 185 A.D.2d 105, lv dismissed and denied 80 N.Y.2d 1005; Henry Rosenfeld, Inc. v Bower Gardner, 161 A.D.2d 374). There is no merit to defendants' argument that proof as to the collectibility of the arbitration award in plaintiffs' favor should have been required at the inquest. That issue refers to liability, not damages and was resolved when defendants' answer was stricken.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.