Opinion
Submitted October 15, 1999
December 2, 1999
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated September 15, 1998, which denied his motion to restore an action, which had been dismissed pursuant toCPLR 3404, to the trial calendar.
John J. Janiec, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Eustace Furey, Uniondale, N.Y. (Edward J. Crawford of counsel), for respondents.
CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party" (Civello v. Grossman, 192 A.D.2d 636 ). All four requirements must be met. Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see,Burgos v. Aqueduct Realty Corp., 92 N.Y.2d 544 ; Cook v. New York City Hous. Auth., 248 A.D.2d 501 ). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.
O'BRIEN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.