MIR v. SAAD

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The determination whether to strike a pleading for failure to comply with court-ordered disclosure lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see CPLR 3126; Bates v Baez, 299 AD2d 382; Patterson v Greater N.Y. Corp. of Seventh Day Adventists, 284 AD2d 382). In the instant case, the dismissal of the complaint was a provident exercise of discretion. The plaintiffs repeatedly failed to comply with demands and requests for disclosure, ultimately resulting in the entry of a conditional order of preclusion. The plaintiffs thereafter failed to comply with that order.

To avoid the adverse impact of a conditional order of preclusion, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply and a meritorious cause of action ( see Colder v Cofta, 49 AD3d 484, 484-485; Callaghan v Curtis, 48 AD3d 501, 502). The plaintiffs failed to meet that burden.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiffs' remaining contention.