Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendant's motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.
"CPLR 3216 `provides a party confronted with a less than diligent adversary with a means to expedite the prosecution of the action by serving upon him a written demand that he file a note of issue within 90 days, or, in the event of a default, risk dismissal of the action'"( Papadopoulas v R.B. Supply Corp., 152 AD2d 552, 553, quoting Carte v Segall, 134 AD2d 397, 398). In order to "avoid a default, a plaintiff served with a 90-day notice must comply either by timely filing a note of issue or moving for an extension of time, within which to comply pursuant to CPLR 2004" ( Carte v Segall, supra, at 398).
Having failed to pursue either of the foregoing options, the plaintiff was obligated to demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a good and meritorious cause of action to avoid the sanction of dismissal ( see, CPLR 3216 [e]; Kwiatkowska v Aramburu, 133 AD2d 810). We conclude that she failed to satisfy this standard.
Although the plaintiff claimed that the delay in complying with the 90-day notice resulted from her reliance on an oral agreement with the defendant providing for the withdrawal of the 90-day notice, the record reveals that she still had approximately 60 days to comply with the 90-day notice when the defendant's attorney advised her that he did not recognize the existence of such an agreement. In addition, the former wife has failed to demonstrate a good and meritorious cause of action.