Order affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff failed to serve a bill of particulars upon the defendant within the 60-day time limit imposed upon her by a conditional order of preclusion, and her action was dismissed. Her subsequent service of an identical summons and complaint upon the defendant did not properly commence a second action but was merely an improper attempt to evade the consequences of the preclusion order ( see, Palmer v. Fox, 28 A.D.2d 968, affd 22 N.Y.2d 667; Strange v. Montefiore Hosp. Med. Center, 91 A.D.2d 507, affd 59 N.Y.2d 737; Santangelo v. YMCA of Greater N.Y., 100 A.D.2d 581). The fact that the original action could have been dismissed as premature pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h (5) did not render it a legal nullity. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.