Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
As a result of the appellants' failure to timely provide the court-ordered discovery, the conditional order of preclusion dated June 9, 2003, became absolute ( see Hall v. Penas, 5 AD3d 549; Marrone v. Orson Holding Corp., 302 AD2d 371). To be relieved of the adverse impact of the conditional order of preclusion, the appellants were required to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply with it and the existence of a meritorious defense ( see Jenkinson v. Naccarato, 286 AD2d 420; Weitzenberg v. Nassau County Dept. of Recreation Parks, 282 AD2d 741; Liotti v. Ruk, 282 AD2d 717). The appellants did neither. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion to strike the appellants' answer was properly granted.