Calendar dismissals are a vivid demonstration of how a case goew wrong.  There are pre-note and post-note of issue instances.  Here is a well written article which discusses pre-note dismissals by William Greenberg

"Now two recent cases from the Appellate Division, Second Department may have lent some clarity. These cases – Travis v. Cuff, 28 AD3d 749, 814 NYS2d 610 (2nd Dept.) and Galati v. C. Raimondo & Sons Constr. Co. 35 AD3d 805, 828 NYS2d 136 2nd Dept 2006) – each squarely determine that the trial court can never use CPLR §3404 to dismiss a case as "abandoned" if it is in "pre-note of issue status."

But to understand Travis and Galati in context it is appropriate to quickly review the calendar control devices available to the Supreme Court. They are CPLR provisions §3126, §3216, §3404 and Uniform Rule 202.27 (22 NYCRR 202.27)."

 
"For the practitioner, the lesson is clear. Where a case is in "pre-note of issue" status – either due to vacature of a previously filed note of issue or because the note of issue has never been filed – the court cannot dismiss pursuant to §3404. Only Rule 202.27, where a party has failed to appear or not been ready to proceed, is a ground for dismissal unless, running afoul of §3216, a party has failed to file a note of issue pursuant to written court direction – directing the filing in not less than 90 days – or ignored a "90 day notice" served by an adversary. See Dergousova v. Long, 37 AD3d 645, 830 N.Y.S.2d 330 (2nd Dept. 2007). "