DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, as a matter of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, and the action is dismissed.
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3012(b) to dismiss the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely serve the complaint. In opposing the motion, the plaintiff was required to demonstrate, inter alia, a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the complaint three and one-half years after it was due (see CPLR 3012[b]; Goldstein v. LoPresti, 284 A.D.2d 497; Elbaz v. Lieb, 269 A.D.2d 489; Tolliver v. County of Nassau, 231 A.D.2d 708; Weiss v. Kahan, 209 A.D.2d 611). The excuses proffered, that the attorney in charge of the plaintiff's action ceased her employment on an unspecified date at the law firm retained by the plaintiff and that there were on-going settlement negotiations, are unsupported by the record and unreasonable under the circumstances presented here.
SANTUCCI, J.P., SMITH, KRAUSMAN, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.