Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Under the circumstances of this case, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to restore the case to the calendar. Because the action was not stricken from the calendar due to any default of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's motion to restore the case to the calendar was made within one year after the case was stricken, the plaintiff did not need to submit an affidavit by a physician establishing a meritorious cause of action ( see, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith v. Tinter, 198 A.D.2d 113, 114; Butler v St. John's Episcopal Hosp., 173 A.D.2d 755, 756; Balducci v Jason, 133 A.D.2d 436, 437; cf., Wulster v. Rubinstein, 126 A.D.2d 545, 546).
Rosenblatt, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.