While disposition on the merits is favored, this preference does not justify vacating a default judgment where the moving party fails to satisfy the two-prong burden of showing a meritorious defense and reasonable excuse for the default (Eisenstein v. Rose, 135 A.D.2d 369). Ten months elapsed between plaintiffs' initial notice of discovery and inspection and the informal letter of inquiry from its attorney; three months elapsed between the letter and the IAS's court's first order; and another three months before the court's conditional order of dismissal — all without any kind of written response to plaintiffs' counsel. Finally, four months after the 60-day conditional order, defendant gave a response consisting of three largely illegible pages. Under the circumstances, the IAS court's finding that defendant failed to meet its burden of showing a reasonable excuse was a sound exercise of discretion (see, Sanders Assocs. v. Hague Dev. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 964). We agree with plaintiffs that the conditional order of dismissal was meant to be self-executing (see, Matter of Simmons v. Board of Educ., 169 A.D.2d 727).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Milonas, Asch and Kassal, JJ.