The court properly exercised its discretion in denying appellants' motion to strike plaintiffs' note of issue and in determining that appellants had waived their right to a physical examination of plaintiffs by failing to comply with the deadlines set in the court's prior order (see Mateo v. City of New York, 282 A.D.2d 313; Mayo v. Lincoln Triangle Assoc., 248 A.D.2d 362). Plaintiffs' certificate of readiness contains no factual errors, since the court's prior order provided for automatic waiver or preclusion for failure to comply with its directives, plaintiffs were deposed timely according to the prior order, and appellants have failed to allege any unusual or unanticipated circumstances which caused their noncompliance.
We have considered and rejected appellants' remaining arguments.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.