DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The plaintiff argues that this medical malpractice action, which is otherwise time-barred, is timely pursuant to CPLR 205(a) because it was commenced within six months after the dismissal of a prior timely action based on the same series of occurrences. However, because the prior action was dismissed for neglect to prosecute, CPLR 205(a) is not applicable (see Benedetto v. Hodes, 112 A.D.2d 393; Wright v. Farlin, 42 A.D.2d 141; Schwartz v. Luks, 46 A.D.2d 634; CPLR 3012[b]). Thus, this action was properly dismissed.
RITTER, J.P., O'BRIEN, GOLDSTEIN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.