Bray v. Thor Steel & Welding Ltd.

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3404. To prevail on the motion, plaintiff was required to demonstrate a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for his delay, his lack of intent to abandon the action and the absence of prejudice to defendant and third-party defendant if the action is restored to the trial calendar (see, Tate v Peninsula Hosp. Ctr., 255 AD2d 503 , 503-504; Krantz v Scholtz, 201 AD2d 784 , 785, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 902 ; Knight v City of New York, 193 AD2d 720 , 721, lv dismissed 83 NY2d 800 ). All four elements must be established for the order of dismissal to be vacated (see, Knight v City of New York, supra, at 721 ; Ornstein v Kentucky Fried Chicken, 121 AD2d 610 , 611), and plaintiff failed to establish three of them. The unsubstantiated assertions in the affirmation of plaintiff’s attorney are insufficient to demonstrate either a meritorious cause of action (see, Maida v Rite Aid Corp., 210 AD2d 589 , 590-591; Matter of Kharrubi v Board of Educ., 133 AD2d 457 , 458) or the absence of prejudice to defendant and third-party defendant if the action is restored to the trial calendar (see, Robinson v New York City Tr. Auth., 203 AD2d 351 ). Further, the intermittent periods of disability claimed by plaintiffs attorney do not constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay because there is “no