PHILIP v. KOULS

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 13, 2004, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying leave to reargue; and it is further,

Ordered that the orders dated March 12, 2004, and March 17, 2004, are affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent. The plaintiffs cross motion for an extension of time to effect service in a prior action was properly denied. After the prior action was dismissed, there was no longer a timelycommenced, pending action in which the plaintiff could seek such leave; it was too late to seek leave in this action as it was commenced after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations period ( see Hambric v McHugh, 289 AD2d 290, 291292 [2001]; see also Matter ofRodamis v Cretan's Assn. Omonoia, Inc., 22 AD3d 859). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him on the ground that it was timebarred ( see Gem Flooring v Kings Park Indus., 5 AD3d 542, 543544 [2004]; see also Donahue v Nassau County Healthcare Corp., 15 AD3d 332).