TARZY v. EPSTEIN

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As the plaintiff conceded that he failed to effect service upon the defendant before the statute of limitations expired, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(e) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Moreover, the plaintiff did not demonstrate good cause for the failure to timely serve the defendant ( see CPLR 306-b). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's request for an extension of time to effect service in the "interest of justice" under CPLR 306-b ( see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95; Winter v. Irizarry, 300 A.D.2d 472; Rihal v. Kirchhoff, 291 A.D.2d 548).

SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, SCHMIDT and FISHER, JJ., concur.