DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In a certification conference order entered March 26, 1998, the Supreme Court directed the plaintiffs to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days, and warned that the failure to comply may serve as a basis for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216. Counsel for both parties signed the order. This had the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 ( see Apicella v. Estate of Apicella, 305 A.D.2d 621; Aguilar v. Knutson, 296 A.D.2d 562; Werbin v. Locicero, 287 A.D.2d 617). Thus, having received a 90-day notice, the plaintiffs were required either to file a note of issue within 90 days or to move pursuant to CPLR 2004 before the default date for an extension of time within which to comply ( see Apicella v. Estate of Apicella, supra; Aguilar v. Knutson, supra; Werbin v. Locicero, supra). The plaintiffs did neither, and the action was subsequently dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216.
A case dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216 may be restored only if the plaintiff can demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the default in complying with the 90-day notice and that a meritorious action exists ( see Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190, 197). The plaintiffs failed to offer a reasonable excuse to justify their lengthy delay after the 90-day notice in moving for leave to file a note of issue ( cf. Conklin v. Physician's Hosp., 237 A.D.2d 401). Accordingly, their motion was properly denied.
SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, ADAMS, RIVERA and LIFSON, JJ., concur.