DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
"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 in prosecuting the action, 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 Braun v. Safdie, 2 A.D.3d 473; Basetti v. Nour, 287 A.D.2d 126, 131). The plaintiff submitted an attorney's affirmation in an effort to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for the delay. Because the attorney is also an associate of the plaintiff law firm which is a party to the action, the submission of an affirmation instead of an affidavit was improper ( see CPLR 2106; Slavenburg Corp. v. Opus Apparel, 53 N.Y.2d 799, 801; Pisacreta v. Minniti, 265 A.D.2d 540; Board of Managers of Ocean Terrace Towne House Condominium v. Lent, 148 A.D.2d 408, 409). In any event, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it had a meritorious cause of action ( see Lai Ling Cheng v. Modansky Leasing Co., 73 N.Y.2d 454, 458; Ocasio v. Schwertz, 284 A.D.2d 443) or a reasonable excuse for the delay ( see Prado v. Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn Queens, 237 A.D.2d 341).
RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, TOWNES, CRANE and RIVERA, JJ., concur.