Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
"Having been served with a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to comply with the notice by filing a note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to either vacate the notice or to extend the 90-day period (see, Turman v. Amity OBG Assocs., 170 A.D.2d 668; Papadopoulas v. R.B. Supply Corp., 152 A.D.2d 552). The plaintiff failed to do so. Accordingly, in order to avoid the sanction of dismissal, [he] was required to demonstrate a justifiable excuse for the delay in properly responding to the 90-day notice and that [he] had a meritorious cause of action (Papadopoulas v. R.B. Supply Corp., supra)" (Spierto v. Pennisi, 223 A.D.2d 537, 538; see, Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., 89 N.Y.2d 499; Safina v. Queens-Long Is. Med. Group, 238 A.D.2d 395). Since the plaintiff failed to meet this burden, his complaint should have been dismissed (see, Spierto v. Pennisi, supra; Baczkowski v. Collins Constr. Co., supra; Safina v. Queens-Long Is. Med. Group, supra).
Miller, J.P., Thompson, Joy and Luciano, JJ., concur.