DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention that a CPLR 3216 notice must always be served by certified or registered mail (see Balancio v. American Opt. Corp., 66 N.Y.2d 750, 751; Beermont Corp. v. Yager, 34 A.D.2d 589; cf. Johnson v. Minskoff Sons, 287 A.D.2d 233, 237), the certification conference order of October 29, 1998, signed by both parties constituted a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see Aguilar v. Knutson, 296 A.D.2d 562; Vento v. Bargain Bilge W., 292 A.D.2d 596, 597; Safina v. Queens-Long Is. Med. Group, 238 A.D.2d 395; Longacre Corp. v. Better Hosp. Equip. Corp., 228 A.D.2d 653, 654). Having received a 90-day notice, the plaintiff was required either to file a note of issue within 90 days or to move pursuant to CPLR 2004 before the default date for an extension of time within which to comply (see Aguilar v. Knutson, supra; Werbin v. Locicero, 287 A.D.2d 617). The plaintiff did neither. Accordingly, the plaintiff could avoid dismissal only by establishing a reasonable excuse for noncompliance and a meritorious cause of action (see Aguilar v. Knutson, supra; Vento v. Bargain Bilge W., supra; Werbin v. Locicero, supra). Since the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable excuse and a meritorious cause of action, the Supreme Court properly denied his motion to restore the action.
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY, SCHMIDT and CRANE, JJ., concur.