DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that to avoid dismissal for failure to serve a complaint after a demand therefor has been served pursuant to CPLR 3012(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate both a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint and a meritorious cause of action ( see Dunefsky v. Petco Animal Supplies, 303 A.D.2d 620; Balgley v. Cammarata, 299 A.D.2d 432; Miraglia v. County of Nassau, 295 A.D.2d 411). The plaintiff failed to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the action.
SANTUCCI, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.