Appeal by defendants from an order of the County Court, Nassau County (C. Weinberg, J.), dated September 24, 2001, which granted plaintiff's motion to vacate the dismissal of the action and restore the matter to the trial calendar, and denied defendants' cross motion for summary judgment.

Order unanimously modified by denying plaintiff's motion to restore the matter to the trial calendar; as so modified, affirmed with $10 costs.

It is well settled that [a] plaintiff moving to restore an action to the trial calendar more than one year after it was stricken from the calendar, after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404, must establish: (1) a meritorious cause of action, (2) a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution of the action, (3) a lack of intent to abandon the action, and (4) a lack of prejudice to the defendant * * *" (Buckley v Astoria Fed. Say. & Loan Assn., 297 AD2d 696, 697 [citations omitted]; see also Neidereger v Hidden Park Apts., 306 AD2d 392; Bassetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126). Plaintiff's motion papers failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecuting the action (see Feratovic v Lun Wah, Inc., 284 AD2d 368). In addition, although plaintiff claims she did not intend to abandon the action, her lengthy failure to communicate with her counsel after she moved from the state demonstrates otherwise (see Zaldua v Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 97 AD2d 84). Accordingly, her motion to restore the action to the trial, calendar should have been denied.

In light of the foregoing, defendants' remaining contention is rendered academic.
[*3]Decision Date: October 02, 2003