DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' cross motion for an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint on the appellants in the interest of justice pursuant to CPLR 306-b ( see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95; Earle v. Valente, 302 A.D.2d 353; Seon Uk Lee v. Corso, 300 A.D.2d 385). Some of the factors favoring the grant of an extension were that the statute of limitations had expired ( see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, supra; Foote v. Ruiz, 289 A.D.2d 374), service which was timely made within the 120-day period was subsequently found to have been defective ( see Earle v. Valente, supra; Seon Uk Lee v. Corso, supra), and there was no prejudice to the appellants who had actual notice of the action ( id.).
SANTUCCI, J.P., SCHMIDT, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.