Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Following the dismissal, without prejudice, of the plaintiffs pendent state law claims in federal court ( see Quinones v Mamis-King, 155 Fed Appx 547 [2005]), the plaintiff failed to commence this action and serve the defendants within the six-month time period of CPLR 205 (a) ( see Pi Ju Tang v St. Francis Hosp., 37 AD3d 690, 691; see also Carlos v Lovett Gould, 29 AD3d 847, 848-849). Consequently, the plaintiffs action was time-barred.
Since the action was time-barred, this Court has no authority to extend the plaintiff's time to serve the summons and complaint on the defendants ( see CPLR 201; Henriquez v Inserra Supermarkets, Inc., 68 AD3d 927).
Given the plaintiffs past litigation history, the Supreme Court properly prohibited her from filing additional motions or claims related to this action without leave of court ( see Matter of Robert v O'Meara, 28 AD3d 567, 568; Braten v Finkelstein, 235 AD2d 513, 514).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions either have been rendered academic in light of our determination or are without merit. [Prior Case History: 2008 NY Slip Op 31795(U).]