ROSARIO v. ELISHIS

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the stroke allegedly suffered by the plaintiff's attorney after service by the appellant of a 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216, we cannot say that the Supreme Court was required to dismiss the complaint unconditionally (see, Capichiano v Montefiore Hosp., 118 A.D.2d 676). Rosenblatt, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.