Defendant appeals from two orders of Civil Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), each entered November 30, 2004, which, inter alia, denied its cross motion to dismiss the complaint as a discovery sanction.

PER CURIAM:

Orders (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.) entered November 30, 2004, affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff was injured in a loading dock accident, and initiated this action in 2000. His failure to comply, to defendant's satisfaction, with a June 2003 conditional order of preclusion did not warrant the extreme sanction of dismissal of the complaint. To the contrary, the record reveals that plaintiff substantially complied with prior disclosure orders by providing a verified bill of particulars and a supplemental bill, while appearing for two examinations before trial and one independent medical examination. When defendant expanded its request for medical records on a prior accident, plaintiff produced all related documents in his possession. The fact that defendant was dissatisfied with that response is an insufficient basis on which to conclude deliberate or contumacious noncompliance (see Miller v Duffy, 126 AD2d 527, 528 [1987]). Although discovery in this case has required close monitoring by the court, there is no indication that plaintiff has failed to comply with the court's directives, to the point of warranting dismissal (Irizarry v Ashar Realty Corp., 14 AD3d 323 [2005]; Cespedes v Mike & Jac Trucking Corp., 305 AD2d 222 [2003]; Cruzatti v St. Mary's Hosp., 193 AD2d 579 [1993]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.
I concur
Decision Date: November 15, 2005