Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendant's motion to dismiss the action is granted.
The plaintiff exhibited an overall lack of diligence in prosecuting this action, failed to show proof of any attempt to serve the corporate defendant by service upon the Secretary of State until over a year after it had commenced this action in July 2004, failed to make any showing of merit, and failed to offer any excuse for the delay in serving the defendant other than a conclusory statement in its opposing counsel's affirmation alleging "clerical oversight due to law office failure." While the statute of limitations has now expired and the defendant did not show any prejudice, those factors were insufficient in the face of the plaintiff's failures, as set forth above, to warrant the denial of the defendant's motion in this instance ( see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 105-106; Ortiz v Malik, 35 AD3d 560; Meusa v BMW Fin. Servs., 32 AD3d 830; Rihal v Kirchhoff, 291 AD2d 548).