Rollieson v. Hollywood Entertainment Corp.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alison Y. Tuitt, J.), entered April 19, 2006, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff I.T.’s claims, unanimously affirmed, without costs. . I.T.’s willful and contumacious conduct in obstructing and delaying the progress of disclosure may be inferred from her failure to appear for court-ordered depositions on four separate occasions (see Kihl v Pfeffer, 94 NY2d 118 [1999]). Under the circumstances, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion after I.T. failed to appear for a deposition on the agreed-upon date, pursuant to a “so ordered” stipulation that had indicated dismissal as the consequence of such failure (see Woolard v Suffolk County Water Auth., 16 AD3d 582 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Sullivan, Williams, Buckley and Kavanagh, JJ.