DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to serve the defendant, pursuant to CPLR 306-b, and granting the defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint. The record reveals that the plaintiff failed to diligently attempt to effect service or promptly seek an extension of time to effect service, and did not even attempt to show the existence of a meritorious cause of action (see Rihal v. Kirchhoff, 291 A.D.2d 548). As such, an extension of time to serve the defendant was not warranted, either for good cause shown, or in the interest of justice (see Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
RITTER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, LUCIANO and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.