DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that upon receipt of a defendant's 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, a plaintiff is required either to file a note of issue within 90 days or move before the default date for an extension of time within which to comply ( see Aguilar v. Knutson, 296 A.D.2d 562; Werbin v. Locicero, 287 A.D.2d 617; Cohen v. Silverman, 281 A.D.2d 445). It is also well settled that a certification order from the court directing the plaintiff to serve and file a note of issue within 90 days and warning that failure to comply may serve as the basis for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216, as was the situation in this case, has the same effect as a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 ( see Aguilar v. Knutson, supra; Vento v. Bargain Bilge W., 292 A.D.2d 596; Longacre Corp. v. Better Hosp. Equip. Corp., 228 A.D.2d 653).
It is undisputed that the plaintiff did not file a note of issue or move for an extension of time within the 90-day period. Thus, to avoid dismissal of the action, the plaintiff was required to show a justifiable excuse for the delay and a meritorious cause of action ( see CPLR 3216[e]; Aguilar v. Knutson, supra; Werbin v. Locicero, supra). However, the plaintiff failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the complaint.
FLORIO, J.P., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, TOWNES and RIVERA, JJ., concur.