Zito v. JastremskiZito v. Jastremski
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiff‘s failure to comply with the 90-day notice, since, inter alia, the plaintiff did not intend to abandon her action and the appellants demanded additional discovery subsequent to the filing of the 90-day demand (see Goldblum v Franklin Munson Fire Dist., supra; Davis v Goodsell, supra at 384; Matter of Simmons v McSimmons, Inc., 261 AD2d 547 [1999]; Markarian v Hundert, 180 AD2d 780 [1992]; Martinisi v Cornwall Hosp., 177 AD2d 549 [1991]). Prudenti, P.J., Adams, Santucci and Lifson, JJ., concur.