BUILDERS APARTMENT CORP CONDOMINIUM v. Joyce Contracting, Inc., third-party defendant-respondent. (2007)

In an action to recover damages for injury to property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated January 23, 2006, as denied its motion for leave to renew its prior motion to restore the action to the trial calendar, which was determined in a prior order of the same court (LeVine, J.), dated October 14, 2004.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

 A case stricken from the trial calendar pursuant to CPLR 3404 and subsequently dismissed after one year may be restored to the trial calendar provided that the plaintiff demonstrates a meritorious cause of action, a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking restoration of the action to the trial calendar, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendant (see Levine v. Agus, 28 A.D.3d 719, 814 N.Y.S.2d 215;   Williams v. D'Angelo, 24 A.D.3d 538, 806 N.Y.S.2d 238;  St. Claire v. Gaskin, 295 A.D.2d 336, 743 N.Y.S.2d 529).   The facts proffered by the plaintiff in support of its motion for leave to renew were insufficient to warrant a change in the prior determination of the Supreme Court, which found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in seeking restoration of the action to the trial calendar, a lack of intent to abandon the action, and a lack of prejudice to the defendants (see Collins v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 266 A.D.2d 178, 697 N.Y.S.2d 341;   Kourtsounis v. Chakrabarty, 254 A.D.2d 394, 679 N.Y.S.2d 84;  Swedish v. Bourie, 233 A.D.2d 495, 496, 650 N.Y.S.2d 765).   Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew.