Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On April 10, 2003, the defendants served the plaintiff with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216. The plaintiff did not comply with the notice by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, either to vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period ( see Davis v. Goodsell, 6 AD3d 382, 384; Bokhari v. Home Depot U.S.A., 4 AD3d 381; McKinney v. Corby, 295 AD2d 580, 581; Micalizzi v. Gomes, 239 AD2d 395). The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to prosecute. To avoid dismissal, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and a meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 105 [u]; 3216 [e]; Werbin v. Locicero, 287 AD2d 617, 618; Matter of Simmons v. McSimmons, Inc., 261 AD2d 547, 548; Markarian v. Hundert, 204 AD2d 697, 697-698). The plaintiff made that showing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion.