Opinion
May 6, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The court properly denied the plaintiff's motion to restore the case to the trial calendar. "[I]t is well settled that '[a] party seeking to restore a case to the trial calendar after it has been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404 must demonstrate the merits of the case, a reasonable excuse for the delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and the lack of prejudice to the nonmoving party in the event that the case is restored to the trial calendar'" ( Kopilas v. Peterson, 206 A.D.2d 460, 461, quoting Civello v. Grossman, 192 A.D.2d 636). In this case, the plaintiff's conclusory affidavit was insufficient to demonstrate the merits of the case ( see, Vargas v. Flatbush Pest Control, 178 A.D.2d 528). Also, the plaintiff failed to establish that the City would not be prejudiced if her motion was granted. The plaintiff's "blanket assertion" that the defendant would suffer no prejudice was insufficient ( see, Robinson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 203 A.D.2d 351).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.