The motion was properly denied insofar as based on plaintiff's failure to appear for a physical examination, where the date for such examination had been postponed indefinitely and defendant never attempted to secure its right thereto by serving plaintiff with another demand therefor ( compare, Best v. City of New York, 97 A.D.2d 389, affd 61 N.Y.2d 847). Nor should the action be dismissed for failure to comply with CPLR 306-a and 306-b, where plaintiff had served defendant with the summons and complaint in this action under the index number purchased in the prior related and successful proceeding to serve a late notice of claim, the revenue-raising purposes of the statutory scheme were satisfied by plaintiff's eventual purchase of a new index number, and defendant suffered no prejudice (CPLR 2001).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.