Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The plaintiffs failed to serve a responsive bill of particulars within the 30-day time limit set in the conditional order of preclusion entered February 25, 2008. The order, therefore, became absolute ( see Gilmore v Garvey, 31 AD3d 381; Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 7 AD3d 750, 751). To avoid the adverse impact of the conditional order of preclusion, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply and a meritorious cause of action ( see State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Hertz Corp., 43 AD3d 907, 908; Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 7 AD3d at 751). The plaintiffs failed to make such a showing. Since the order of preclusion prevents the plaintiffs from establishing a prima facie case, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see Calder v Cofta, 49 AD3d 484; State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v Hertz Corp., 43 AD3d at 908).