Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court did not err in striking the 90-day notices to prosecute, and in denying the cross motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute. At the time the 90-day notices at issue were served, it was understood between the parties and the court that the entire action had been stayed because of the bankruptcy of a codefendant, and that a motion to sever that codefendant was required in order for the action to proceed. In addition, we are satisfied that the action was delayed in part because the defendants had failed to comply with the Plaintiffs' disclosure requests.
We reject the defendants' contention that the accrual of interest ( see, EPTL 5-4.3) should be tolled under equitable estoppel principles.