Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Howard G. Lane, J.), entered September 15, 2006. The order denied plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar.

Order affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff did not move to restore the instant matter within one year after it was stricken from the trial calendar (see Uniform Rules for the New York City Civil Court [22 NYCRR] § 208.14 [c]) and was therefore required to show, inter alia, a reasonable excuse for the delay (see Chavez v 407 Seventh Ave. Corp., 39 AD3d 454 [2007]; LoFredo v CMC Occupational Health Servs., 189 Misc 2d 781 [2001]; Lang v Wall St. Mtge. Bankers, Ltd., NYLJ, June 10, 1999 [App Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists]). Upon a review of the record, we find that the court below did not improvidently exercise its discretion in concluding that plaintiff failed to offer a reasonable excuse for the 21-month delay in seeking to restore the action to the calendar (see generally Krichmar v Queens Med. Imaging, P.C., 26 AD3d 417, 419 [2006]; Sherry v Sherry, 306 AD2d 398 [2003]; Dalto v 3660 Park Wantagh Owners, 275 AD2d 296 [2000]; Fico v [*2]Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y., 248 AD2d 432, 434 [1998]). Accordingly, the order denying plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the trial calendar is affirmed.

Rios, J.P., Pesce and Golia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: July 10, 2008