Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., New York (Jeffrey R. Metz of counsel), for appellant.

Camacho Mauro Mulholland, LLP, New York (Yashana McAuley-Parrish of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered November 17, 2017, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied plaintiff's motion to strike the answer for noncompliance with discovery orders, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion (see Those Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v Occidental Gems, Inc., 11 NY3d 843, 845 [2008]). The record establishes that a material item of discovery (i.e., the project file) was omitted from defendant's initial response to plaintiff's discovery demand. Defendant's omission does not establish that it acted in bad faith or that its conduct was willful or contumacious. Once plaintiff specifically requested the project file, it was produced within a month. Moreover, there is no evidence that plaintiff was prejudiced by defendant's conduct, and defendant complied with all other discovery demands. Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Webber, Kahn, Kern, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2017 NY Slip Op 32368(U).]