Gavrielatos v. Vienna HotelGavrielatos v. Vienna Hotel
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The conditional order of dismissal became absolute as a result of the plaintiff‘s failure to comply with its terms (see Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., 7 AD3d 750, 751 [2004]; Hall v Penas, 5 AD3d 549 [2004]; Marrone v Orson Holding Corp., 302 AD2d 371 [2003]; Stewart v City of New York, 266 AD2d 452 [1999]). The plaintiff failed to make a sufficient showing to be relieved of the adverse impact of the conditional order (see Echevarria v Pathmark Stores, Inc., supra; Hall v Penas, supra; Marrone v Orson Holding Corp., supra; Stewart v City of New York, supra). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in entering judgment upon the conditional order, dismissing the complaint (see