DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.
It is well settled that when a party is served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 and fails to comply with the notice by either filing a note of issue or moving, before the default date, to vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period, that party must demonstrate both a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see, CPLR 3216[e]; Matter of Simmons v. McSimmons, 261 A.D.2d 547 [2d Dept., May 17, 1999]; Allone v. University Hosp. of N.Y. Univ. Med. Ctr., 249 A.D.2d 430 ;Papadopoulas v. R.B. Supply Corp., 152 A.D.2d 552, 553 ). Since the plaintiffs failed to comply with the Supreme Court's certification order, which adequately placed them on notice that the failure to file a note of issue within 90 days would serve as a basis for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3216 (see, Spilky v. TRW, Inc., 225 A.D.2d 539 ), and since they did not move either to vacate the notice or extend the 90-day period, the plaintiffs were required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse and a meritorious cause of action. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate either and, thus, the motion by the defendant Cassidy to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him should have been granted.
O'BRIEN, J.P., SULLIVAN, GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.