Dismissal of the action was appropriate since plaintiffs failed to comply with the express, bargained-for condition precedent to their right to bring an action against defendants ( see Yonkers Contr. Co. v Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp., 208 AD2d 63, aff'd 87 NY2d 927; see also Oppenheimer Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690-692). The agreements between the parties made the submission by plaintiffs of an expert certification to defendants a condition precedent to plaintiffs' right to bring any legal action against defendants. Plaintiffs failed to submit such certification prior to commencing this action and their efforts to utilize the relation-back doctrine to cure the defective initial complaint are unavailing. Relation back applies to the amendment of claims and parties and is dependent upon the existence of a valid preexisting action ( see Carrick v Central Gen. Hosp., 51 NY2d 242, 248-249). Here, however, the original complaint was brought by plaintiffs in violation of the condition precedent, and plaintiffs cannot rely upon CPLR 203 (f) to cure such failure to comply ( see Goldberg v Camp Mikan-Recro, 42 NY2d 1029).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them unavailing.