| Ambrosio v Simonovsky |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03679 [62 AD3d 634] |
| May 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Shannon Ambrosio, Appellant, v Boris Simonovsky,Respondent. |
—[*1] Abamont & Associates, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Thomas D. Leff of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated April 4, 2008, which granted thedefendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to dismiss the complaint and denied his crossmotion pursuant to CPLR 306-b to extend his time to serve the summons and complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 306-band in support of the plaintiff's cross motion to extend his time to serve the summons andcomplaint pursuant to that statute, the plaintiff was required to show either good cause for hisfailure to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint within 120 days after their filingor that an extension of time to effect service should be granted in the interest of justice (seeLeader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 104-107 [2001]; Riccio v Ghulam, 29 AD3d 558,560 [2006]). The plaintiff failed to show good cause for his failure since he admittedly made noattempt to serve the defendant within 120 days after the filing of the summons and complaint(see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d at 105; Valentin v Zaltsman, 39 AD3d852 [2007]; Riccio v Ghulam, 29 AD3d at 560).
Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show that an extension of time to serve the defendant waswarranted in the interest of justice in view of the lack of diligence shown by the plaintiff,including the one-year delay between the time the summons and complaint were filed and thetime the cross motion to extend his time to serve the summons and complaint was made, the9½-month delay [*2]between the expiration of the statute oflimitations and the defendant's receipt of notice of the action, the failure to make any showing ofmerit, and the lack of an excuse for the failure to effect timely service (see Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co., 4NY3d 816, 817 [2005]; AmericanTel. & Tel. Co. v Schnabel Found. Co., 38 AD3d 580 [2007]; Ortiz v Malik, 35 AD3d 560,560-561 [2006]; Meusa v BMW Fin.Servs., 32 AD3d 830, 831 [2006]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Leventhal,JJ., concur.