PER CURIAM: In affirming the court's restoral order, we note landlord's lack of intent to abandon the additional rent claim asserted by it in the within nonpayment summary proceeding and its active defense of the related Supreme Court accounting action instituted by the tenant ( see Roberson v. City of New York, 195 AD2d 597; see generally Evans v. New York City Hous. Auth., 262 AD2d 123). This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
The defendants appeal the grant of the plaintiff's motion to restore this case to the trial calendar after it was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3404. However, because the plaintiff adequately demonstrated a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for her delay, the absence of an intent to abandon the matter, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting such relief ( see, Robinson v. New York City Tr. Auth., 203 A.D.2d 351; Roberson v. City of New York, 195 A.D.2d 597; Hammer v. Hochberg, 128 A.D.2d 834; Friedberg v. Bay Ridge Orthopedic Assocs., 122 A.D.2d 194). However, we have imposed costs of $1,500 upon the plaintiff's attorneys for their neglect in this matter as a condition to opening up the default.
Ordered that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the motion is granted. Although the failure to timely restore an action to the trial calendar creates a presumption of abandonment (see, CPLR 3404), under the facts of this case, we find that the plaintiff made a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption (see, Fiorello v South Shore Dental Assocs., 203 A.D.2d 323; Roberson v. City of New York, 195 A.D.2d 597, 598). Accordingly, and because the plaintiff provided a sufficient affidavit of merit, we exercise our discretion and grant the application to restore this action to the trial calendar.