Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"A party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar 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" ( Civello v. Grossman, 192 A.D.2d 636; see, Fico v. Health Ins. Plan, 248 A.D.2d 432; Iazzetta v. Vicenzi, 243 A.D.2d 540; Henne v. Lefrak, 246 A.D.2d 628; Miller v. City of New York, 242 A.D.2d 370). Moreover, all of the above requirements must be satisfied before a case can be properly restored ( see, Fico v. Health Ins. Plan, supra; Gonzalez v. First Natl. Supermarket, 232 A.D.2d 609; Roland v. Napolitano, 209 A.D.2d 501).
The plaintiffs have failed to establish their entitlement to restoration of the case to the trial calendar ( see, Fico v. Health Ins. Plan, supra; Kopilas v. Peterson, 206 A.D.2d 460).
Thompson, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.