DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court's compliance conference order dated May 9, 2000, which served as the equivalent of a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Goldberg v. Tunstall,
295 A.D.2d 315; Vento v. Bargain Bilge West, Inc.,
292 A.D.2d 596; Seletsky v. St. Francis Hosp.,
263 A.D.2d 452, 453), required the plaintiff either to file a note of issue by August 8, 2000, or move for an extension of time within which to comply pursuant to CPLR 2004. The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to extend the time to complete discovery and file a note of issue, given the almost four-year delay in conducting any discovery from the time issue was joined until the plaintiff's motion, the plaintiff's failure to give any reason for the delay, and the prejudice to the defendants (see Carota v. Massapequa Union Free School Dist.,
272 A.D.2d 428; Versatile Furniture Prods. v. 32-8 Maujer Realty,
97 A.D.2d 463; cf. Tewari v. Tsoutsouras,
75 N.Y.2d 1, 12).
ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.