ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs an extension of time to serve the summons and complaint on the defendant in the interest of justice pursuant to CPLR 306-b (see, Hafkin v. North Shore Univ. Hosp., N.Y.2d [Nov. 20, 2001]; Scarabaggio v. Olympia York Estates Co., N.Y.2d [Nov. 20, 2001]; Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, N.Y.2d [Nov. 20, 2001]). Although the summons and complaint were filed before the expiration of the Statute of Limitations, the plaintiffs' claims would be extinguished without an extension as the Statute of Limitations has since expired (see, Beauge v. New York City Tr. Auth., 282 A.D.2d 416). In addition, the plaintiffs timely moved for an extension within the 120-day period set forth in CPLR 306-b, the defendant received actual notice of the action within that statutory period, and he failed to demonstrate any prejudice attributable to the delay (see, Beauge v. New York City Tr. Auth., supra; Scarabaggio v. Olympia York Estates Co., supra; Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini Spencer, supra).
O'BRIEN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.