Plaintiff's motion to restore his case was denied on the ground that he failed to establish a reasonable excuse for the delay in completing discovery and filing a note of issue, a criterion for restoration pursuant to CPLR 3404 (see Werner v. Tiffany, 291 A.D.2d 305). However, the very fact that no note of issue was filed renders CPLR 3404 inapplicable to this case (Johnson v. Minskoff Sons, Inc., 287 A.D.2d 233). Dismissal of pre-note of issue cases for want of prosecution is governed by CPLR 3216 (id.). We note in that connection that plaintiff was never served with a 90-day demand to serve and file a note of issue (see CPLR 3216[b][3];Arcate v. Cohen, 289 A.D.2d 148).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.