DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude their claims for damages and to dismiss the complaint since the plaintiffs repeatedly violated the Supreme Court's discovery orders, including the order directing the injured plaintiff to appear for certain independent medical examinations (hereinafter IMEs) and violated the Supreme Court's subsequent order directing that such claims would be precluded if he failed to complete all IMEs by a date certain ( see Kihl v. Pfeffer, 94 N.Y.2d 118; Gomez v. Gateway Demolition Corp., 293 A.D.2d 649; Abouzeid v. Cadogan, 291 A.D.2d 423).
The plaintiffs' remaining contention is raised for the first time on appeal and is not properly before this court ( see Zambito v. Catanzaro, 264 A.D.2d 839).
SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.