Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, there is no evidence in the record that this case was dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to appear at a compliance conference ( see 22 NYCRR 202.27). Furthermore, CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action ( see Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 AD2d 190), and there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to restore this action to the calendar after it had been marked inactive ( see Burdick v. Marcus, 17 AD3d 388; Bar-El v. Key Food Stores Co., Inc., 11 AD3d 420; Auguste v. Linden Gardens Condominium, 8 AD3d 414; 123X Corp. v. McKenzie, 7 AD3d 769).