Although plaintiffs failed to restore this action within one year after it was marked off the court's calendar (see, CPLR 3404), they demonstrated a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking to restore the action to the calendar, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the opposing parties (Zabari v. City of New York, 242 A.D.2d 15, 16). In this regard, we note that the affidavit of plaintiff William G. Indrunas, which, among other things, indicated that he was severely injured when he fell into an unlit, unguarded elevator shaft, sufficiently demonstrated the merits of his claims.
As to the delay in moving to restore the action to the court's calendar, such delay resulted, in large part, from law office failure following the departure of the managing attorney of the law firm representing plaintiffs. While this supported a finding of neglect, it did not establish a willful default or an intent to abandon plaintiffs' action (see, Salzano v. Mastrantonio, 267 A.D.2d 5). We perceive no prejudice to defendants resulting from the delay in restoring this action to the calendar.
Notwithstanding this, imposition of a condition to reversal is warranted under the circumstances of this case (see, Salamone v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr., 273 A.D.2d 117, 709 N.Y.S.2d 181).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.