LIOTTI v. RUK

Martin, J.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As a consequence of the plaintiff's failure to comply with a conditional order of dismissal, that order became absolute ( see, Kepple v Hill Assocs., 275 A.D.2d 299, 230; Tirone v Staten Is. Univ. Hosp., 264 A.D.2d 415; Askenazi v Hymil Mfg. Co., 263 A.D.2d 443). To be relieved from the adverse impact of the order of dismissal, the plaintiff had to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely comply with the discovery demand, and the existence of a meritorious cause of action ( see, Barriga v Sapo, 250 A.D.2d 795; Michaud v. City of New York, 242 A.D.2d 369; Cobble Hill Nursing Home v. Griffo, 240 A.D.2d 459). The plaintiff submitted a reasonable excuse for the six-day delay in serving the amended response to the defendant's first set of interrogatories (see, CPLR 2005). Furthermore, the amended response established the existence of a meritorious cause of action.