Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction since, at a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the plaintiffs failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence that service was proper ( see Deutsche Bank Nat'l. Trust Co. v Pestano, 71 AD3d 1074, 1075; Forrester v Luisa, 52 AD3d 324; see also De Zego v Donald F Bruhn, M. D., P. C., 67 NY2d 875).
The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint ( see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 NY2d 95). The plaintiffs failed to establish that good cause existed to extend the time for service ( see Colon v Bailey, 26 AD3d 454, 455; Wilkins v Burgess, 25 AD3d 794; see also Ortiz v Malik, 35 AD3d 560; Alexander v Alexander, 32 AD3d 524). The plaintiffs also failed to establish that an extension of time was warranted in the interest of justice since they "exhibited a lack of diligence in commencing the action . . . until the statute of limitations had nearly expired ( see Ortiz v Malik, 35 AD3d 560) . . . did not seek an extension of time to serve the defendant[s] until after a motion to dismiss had been brought by the defendant[,] despite having been served with the defendant['] answer, which raised the lack of personal jurisdiction as an affirmative defense ( see Varon v Maimonides Med. Ctr., 67 AD3d 779, 779-780; Shea v Bloomberg, L.P., 65 AD3d 579, 580; Garcia v Simonovsky, 62 AD3d 655, 656), and . . . failed to establish [a] potentially meritorious cause of action ( see Garcia v Simonovsky, 62 AD3d 655, 656; Ortiz v Malik, 35 AD3d 560; Wilkins v Burgess, 25 AD3d 794; Kazimierski v New York Univ., 18 AD3d 820)" ( Calloway v Wells, 79 AD3d 786, 787).
The plaintiffs' remaining contentions are without merit.