Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Jen Franz from so much of the order as granted that branch of plaintiff's motion which was for an extension of time to effect service of process upon her pursuant to CPLR 306-b is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party ( see CPLR 5511); and it is further,
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from by the defendants Stuart Fourman, Stephen Kottmeier, George Sander Davis, as executor of the estate of James Davis, David Cooling, Susana Fuchs, Robert Barraco, Javier Perez, John Brebbia, Fred Orcutt, Collin Brathwaite, Jeanne Choi, Michael Imperato, Lawrence Kass, Mathew Rifkin, Thomas Smith, Robert Peyster, and Arthur P. Rossiello, sued herein as John Doe # 8 SUSB ID # 170266, that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for an extension of time to effect service of process upon those defendants is denied, and the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against those defendants; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants Stuart Fourman, Stephen Kottmeier, George Sander Davis, as executor of the estate of James Davis, David Cooling, Susana Fuchs, Robert Barraco, Javier Perez, John Brebbia, Fred Orcutt, Collin Brathwaite, Jeanne Choi, Michael Imperato, Lawrence Kass, Mathew Rifkin, Thomas Smith, Robert Peyster, and Arthur P. Rossiello, sued herein as John Doe #8 SUSB ID #170266.
The defendant Jen Franz did not oppose the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to effect service of process pursuant to CPLR 306-b. No appeal lies from an order entered upon the default of the appealing party ( see CPLR 5511; Coneys v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 11 AD3d 576; Marino v. Termini, 4 AD3d 342; Adamson v. Evans, 283 AD2d 527). Thus, the appeal by Franz must be dismissed.
However, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the motion which was for an extension of time to effect service of process upon the remaining appellants notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of limitations. The record demonstrates a lack of diligence in effecting service upon those appellants and a complete failure to establish the existence of a meritorious cause of action ( see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 NY2d 95). Accordingly, an extension of time to effect service of process upon them was not warranted, either for good cause or in the interest of justice ( see Stuart v. Gimpel, 2 AD3d 625; Henig v. Good Samaritan Med. Ctr., 301 AD2d 571; Matter of DeSilva v. Town of Brookhaven, 299 AD2d 409; Rihal v. Kirchhoff, 291 AD2d 548).