Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Upon the plaintiff's failure to comply with the conditional order of dismissal entered May 4, 2001, the order became absolute ( 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). To be relieved of the adverse impact of the conditional order, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her default and the existence of a meritorious claim ( see Echevarria v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., supra; Hall v. Penas, supra at 549-550; Marrone v. Orson Holding Corp., supra at 371-372; Stewart v. City of New York, supra). The plaintiff's counsel failed to adequately explain and detail the alleged law office failure which occurred after the suspension of the attorney who had formerly handled the plaintiff's case ( see generally Grezinsky v. Mount Hebron Cemetery, 305 AD2d 542; Eretz Funding v. Shalosh Assoc., 266 AD2d 184, 185). In the absence of a reasonable excuse for the plaintiff's default, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion, in effect, to vacate her default in complying with the conditional order.