The primary cause of the delay and inactivity in the case was due to plaintiff's failure to contact her attorney or to make her whereabouts known to her attorney for some four years so that he could contact her. Indeed, the reason counsel did not place the action on the calendar was because he was unable to contact his client and thus feared a dismissal for unreadiness. Plaintiff offers no excuses for not keeping her whereabouts known to her own attorney and this may be deemed an abandonment of the action by plaintiff herself. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to revive this action commenced in 1990 (see, Martinez v. Belanger, 186 A.D.2d 40, affd 82 N.Y.2d 672; 179 MacDougal Equities v. North Realty Co., 232 A.D.2d 280; compare, Barton v. Executive Health Examiners, 277 A.D.2d 27, 716 N.Y.S.2d 3).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.