Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The conditional preclusion language in the parties' so-ordered stipulation became absolute upon the plaintiffs' failure to comply with its terms ( see Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 7 AD3d 750, 751; Hall v Penas, 5 AD3d 549; Marrone v Orson Holding Corp., 302 AD2d 371; Stewart v City of New York, 266 AD2d 452). In order to avoid the adverse impact thereof, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default and the existence of a meritorious claim ( see Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., supra; Hall v Penas, supra; Marrone v Orson Holding Corp., supra; Stewart v City of New York, supra). 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 correctly, in effect, granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint ( see Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., supra; Barriga v Sapo, 250 AD2d 795).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.