LUZZI v. TOBIN

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, the cross motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar more than one year after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party in the event the case is restored to the trial calendar (see, Ettehadieh v. Dolan, 283 A.D.2d 605; Civello v. Grossman, 192 A.D.2d 636; cf., Basetti v. Nour, ___ A.D.2d ___). The moving party must satisfy all four components of the test before the dismissal can be properly vacated (see, Fico v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 248 A.D.2d 432). The plaintiff failed to meet this burden. Thus, the action against the appellants should have been dismissed (see, Devest, Ltd. v. Continental Garage Mgt. Corp., 251 A.D.2d 214; Leone v. Bates Plan-A-Home of Sidney, 144 A.D.2d 759).

BRACKEN, P.J., KRAUSMAN, LUCIANO, SMITH and ADAMS, JJ., concur.