DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant is dismissed, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
The Supreme Court should have granted the motion of the defendant Valery Gimpel pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The plaintiff failed to diligently attempt to effect service on Gimpel, never moved for an extension of time to effect service, and failed to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious cause of action ( see Winter v. Irizarry, 300 A.D.2d 472; Rihal v. Kirchhoff, 291 A.D.2d 548) . Accordingly, an extension of time to serve Gimpel was not warranted, either for good cause shown, or in the interest of justice ( see CPLR 306-b; Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95).
SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.