The motion to restore was properly denied in the absence of a showing of activity during the year following the striking of the action from the calendar indicative of plaintiffs' intent not to abandon the action (CPLR 3404; see, Curtin v Grand Union Co., 124 AD2d 918, 919), Indeed, there does not appear to have been any activity for a period of some three and a half years following the striking of the action from the calendar. Plaintiffs' excuse that their attorney did not know that the case had been struck until she attempted to file a note of issue does not explain the three-year delay in filing the note of issue after disclosure had been completed.