123X CORP. v. McKENZIE

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to "restore" this action after it had been marked inactive due to the parties' failure to appear at a status conference. CPLR 3404 does not apply to this pre-note of issue action ( see Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190), there was no 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, and there was no order dismissing the complaint pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.27. Accordingly, the motion was properly granted ( see Lucious v. Rutland Nursing Home of Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr., 2 A.D.3d 412; Gendus v. Sheraton/Atlantic City W., 302 A.D.2d 427; Torres v. Nu-Way Mach. Corp. Co., 296 A.D.2d 545; Farley v. Danaher Corp., 295 A.D.2d 559).

The defendants' remaining contention is without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, LUCIANO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.