DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A party who has failed to comply with a demand for examination served pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h(2) is precluded from commencing an action against a municipality (see General Municipal Law § 50-h; Heins v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Greenport, 237 A.D.2d 570; Arcila v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 231 A.D.2d 660, 661; Bailey v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 191 A.D.2d 606; cf. Matter of Johnson v. City of Yonkers, 262 A.D.2d 563) . Here, the Supreme Court properly granted the motion of the defendants County of Suffolk and Sheriff of the County of Suffolk to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them since a General Municipal Law § 50-h hearing was adjourned at the plaintiff's request, and the plaintiff commenced this action without rescheduling a new hearing date after the last adjournment (see Arcila v. Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, supra; Bailey v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., supra).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
SMITH, J.P., S. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.