Appeal by plaintiff from so much of an order of the Civil Court, Kings County (B. Bayne, J.), entered on January 14, 2003, as granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Order unanimously affirmed with $10 costs.

To avoid the adverse impact of a conditional order of preclusion, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to comply with said order or demonstrate an excusable default and a meritorious claim (Bender & Bodnar v Nankin, 186 AD2d 524 [1992]; Donovan v Getty Petroleum Corp., 174 AD2d 706 [1991]). Plaintiffs excuse that another individual appeared in his stead, albeit a few minutes late, for plaintiffs court-ordered deposition, does not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for plaintiffs default in appearing. The order of preclusion clearly directed plaintiff to personally appear at his deposition. Moreover, plaintiff has not established a meritorious claim. Consequently, the order precluding plaintiff from offering evidence at trial became absolute (see Ciancimino v Roth, 286 AD2d 696 [2001]) and defendant's motion for summary judgment was [*2]properly granted.
Decision Date: December 09, 2003