BITTERMAN v. HUREWITZ

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When the plaintiffs failed to appear for a compliance conference, the court was authorized to dismiss the action pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27 ( see Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190, 194-195). In moving, in effect, to vacate the order dismissing the complaint, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default in appearing at the compliance conference and a meritorious claim ( see CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; Kang v. LaGuardia Hosp., 12 AD3d 347; Santiago v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 10 AD3d 393; Mount Sinai Hosp. of Queens v. Hertz Corp., 3 AD3d 523, 524 [2004]; Precision Envelope Co. v. Marcus Co., 306 AD2d 263; Spells v. AP Supermarkets, 253 AD2d 422; Roussodimou v. Zafiriadis, 238 AD2d 568, 568-569). The plaintiffs failed to make that showing. Accordingly, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion.