A year and a half after commencing the action, and with some discovery done, plaintiff filed a note of issue which defendant moved to vacate pending the completion of discovery. The court adjourned that motion so that discovery could be completed by a specified date. Two pretrial conferences were scheduled and then adjourned because one or the other of the attorneys was absent. Another pretrial conference was scheduled and, while both attorneys were there, it was noted that plaintiff still had not taken defendant's deposition. Still another pretrial conference was scheduled and, this time, plaintiff was represented by a per diem attorney who knew nothing of the case and had no authority to act. Since defendant's deposition had still not been taken, and since plaintiff's counsel had disregarded the court's instruction to make a settlement demand, the court dismissed the action for abandonment, pursuant to CPLR 3404. The First Department remanded for a sanction less drastic than dismissal, in Alveranga-Duran v. New Whitehall Apts., which was decided on May 8, 2007.The court noted that plaintiff's counsel had not been specifically warned that his noncompliance would result in dismissal, and, even more telling, the court found that plaintiff had not been responsible in any way for counsel's dereliction. The court said that, while counsel should be sanctioned, plaintiff should not be denied a day in court.