RIHAL v. KIRCHHOFF

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion to extend the time in which to serve the defendant pursuant to CPLR 306-b, despite the expiration of the Statute of Limitations. The record demonstrates an extended delay in service, a lack of diligence in effecting service, the failure to promptly and properly move for an extension of time, and the complete failure to demonstrate the existence of a meritorious action (see, Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95; Carbonaro v. Maimonides Med. Ctr., 289 A.D.2d 437 [2d Dept., Dec. 24, 2001]). Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish good cause for an extension or that the interests of justice would be served by an extension.

RITTER, J.P., SMITH, KRAUSMAN and TOWNES, JJ., concur.