Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiff failed to establish that the process servers were either dead or unavailable at the time of the hearing on the issue of service of process. Therefore the court correctly found that the affidavits of service were not admissible as prima facie evidence of proper service of process (Carlino v Cook, 126 A.D.2d 597; Anton v Amato, 101 A.D.2d 819).
Since the plaintiff failed to present any other evidence to sustain her burden of establishing proper service, the court correctly dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction (Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Holtzman, 135 A.D.2d 696; Carlino v Cook, supra; Anton v Amato, supra). Further the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for renewal of the grant of the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment based upon the belated discovery of the location of one of the process servers (Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v Holtzman, supra; cf., Gordon v Nemeroff Realty Corp., 139 A.D.2d 492). Mangano, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin, Eiber and Balletta, JJ., concur.