| Mir v Saad |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07099 [54 AD3d 914] |
| September 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Nadeem Mir et al., Appellants, v Rouafa Saad,Respondent. |
—[*1] Harvey Gladstein & Partners LLC, New York, N.Y. (John J. Bruno of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an orderof the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.), dated August 17, 2006, which denied theirmotion to enlarge the time to file a note of issue and granted the defendant's cross motionpursuant to CPLR 3126 to dismiss the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The determination whether to strike a pleading for failure to comply with court-ordereddisclosure lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see CPLR 3126 [3];Bates v Baez, 299 AD2d 382 [2002]; Patterson v Greater N.Y. Corp. of Seventh DayAdventists, 284 AD2d 382 [2001]). In the instant case, the dismissal of the complaint was aprovident exercise of discretion. The plaintiffs repeatedly failed to comply with demands andrequests for disclosure, ultimately resulting in the entry of a conditional order of preclusion. Theplaintiffs thereafter failed to comply with that order.
To avoid the adverse impact of a conditional order of preclusion, the plaintiffs mustdemonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to comply and a meritorious cause of action (see Calder v Cofta, 49 AD3d 484,484-485 [2008]; Callaghan v Curtis,48 AD3d 501, 502 [2008]). The plaintiffs failed to meet that burden.[*2]
In light of our determination, we need not reach theplaintiffs' remaining contention. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo, McCarthy and Chambers, JJ.,concur.