DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The record is unclear as to whether this action was dismissed or purportedly "marked off" the active calendar when the plaintiff failed to appear at a compliance conference on January 23, 2001. If the action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3216, such dismissal was improper. A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met ( see Murray v. Smith Corp., 296 A.D.2d 445, 447). Here, the compliance conference order merely set a date for the filing of a note of issue and failed, inter alia, to advise the plaintiff that the failure to comply with the demand would serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss the action. Accordingly, the compliance conference order could not be deemed a 90-day demand ( see Akpinar v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 302 A.D.2d 337; Murray v. Smith Corp., supra; Boland v. Biordi, 282 A.D.2d 421; Schuering v. Stella, 243 A.D.2d 623).
To the extent that the case may have been removed from active status, such action is equivalent to marking "off" a pre-note of issue case, a practice which is not permitted ( see Hemberger v. Jamaica Hosp., 306 A.D.2d 244; Akpinar v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., supra; Murray v. Smith Corp., supra; Lopez v. Imperial Delivery Serv., 282 A.D.2d 190).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the active calendar and to extend the time to file a note of issue.
SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, LUCIANO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.