Ordered that the order dated April 13, 2009 is affirmed, with costs.
Upon the plaintiffs' failure to proceed on the scheduled trial date, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the action. To vacate the order dismissing the action and to restore the action to the trial calendar, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for their default and a meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; 22 NYCRR 202.27; Santiago v Santana, 54 AD3d 929, 930; Frangione v Daniels, 44 AD3d 708; Brooks v Haidt, 30 AD3d 365; Kandel v Hoffman, 309 AD2d 904, 905; cf. CPLR 3404). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their repeated failure to proceed with the trial and to comply with orders directing them to serve post note of issue expert witness disclosure ( see 22 NYCRR 202.21 [d]) for more than two years ( see Santiago v Santana, 54 AD3d at 930; Kouzios v Dery, 57 AD3d 949, 950; Antoine v Bee, 26 AD3d 306; Kandel v Hoffman, 309 AD2d 904, 905). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to restore the action to the trial calendar and to vacate the order dismissing the action.