DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the motion which was to restore the action insofar as asserted against the defendant New York City Housing Authority is denied.
"A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it has been marked `off,' and after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must establish a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay * * *, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants" ( Kalyuskin v. Rudisel, 306 A.D.2d 246, 247; see Samuel Weininger v. Belovin Franzblau, A.D.3d [2d Dept, Mar. 8, 2004]; Kanner v. Rubin, 1 A.D.3d 569; Basetti v. Nour, 287 A.D.2d 126, 130). The moving party must satisfy all four components of the test before dismissal can be properly vacated ( see Luzzi v. Tobin, 288 A.D.2d 193; Martin v. NYRAC, Inc., 284 A.D.2d 311; Fico v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 248 A.D.2d 432).
Here, the plaintiff failed to meet this burden. The plaintiff's excuse that her attorney missed the trial conference, scheduled for June 1, 2000, because she was unaware of the date, amounts to law office failure, which, under the circumstances of this case, did not constitute a reasonable excuse ( see Cruz v. Volkswagen of Am., 277 A.D.2d 340; Collins v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 266 A.D.2d 178; Rudy v. Chasky, 260 A.D.2d 625; Fico v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., supra; Diamond v. J.B.J. Mgt. Co., 220 A.D.2d 378). Moreover, the plaintiff engaged in only minimal activity regarding the case during the 2 ½ year period which elapsed from the date it was marked off the calendar, to the date she moved to restore. This limited activity was insufficient to rebut the presumption of abandonment that attached after the automatic dismissal ( see Kalyuskin v. Rudisel, supra; Cruz v. Volkswagen of Am., supra; Fico v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., supra). Furthermore, the plaintiff's submissions failed to adequately demonstrate the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to restore the action to the trial calendar insofar as asserted against the defendant New York City Housing Authority.
ALTMAN, J.P., H. MILLER, KRAUSMAN and COZIER, JJ., concur.