CPLR § 306-b

In opposition to the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to CPLR 306-b and in support of the plaintiff's cross motion
to extend his time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to that
statute, the plaintiff was required to show either good cause for his
failure to serve the defendant with the summons and complaint within
120 days after their filing or that an extension of time to effect
service should be granted in the interest of justice (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 104-107; Riccio v Ghulam, 29 AD3d 558,
560). The plaintiff failed to show good cause for his failure since he
admittedly made no attempt 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 AD3d 852; Riccio v Ghulam, 29 AD3d at 560).

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show that an extension of
time to serve the defendant was warranted 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 the time the cross motion to extend his time to serve the summons
and complaint was made, the 9½- month delay [*2]between
the expiration of the statute of limitations and the defendant's
receipt of notice of the action, the failure to make any showing of
merit, and the lack of an excuse for the failure to effect timely
service (see Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 816, 817; American Tel. & Tel. Co. v Schnabel Found. Co., 38 AD3d 580; Ortiz v Malik, 35 AD3d 560, 560-561; Meusa v BMW Fin. Servs., 32 AD3d 830, 831).

In opposition to the respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to CPLR 306-b and in support of the plaintiff's cross motion
to extend her time to serve the summons and complaint pursuant to that
statute, the plaintiff was required to show either good cause for her
failure to serve the respondent with the summons and complaint within
120 days after their filing or that an extension of time to effect
service should be granted in the interest of justice (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 104-107; Riccio v Ghulam, 29 AD3d 558,
560). The plaintiff failed to show good cause for her failure since she
admittedly made no attempt to serve the respondent 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 AD3d 852; Riccio v Ghulam, 29 AD3d at 560).

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show that an extension of
time to serve the defendant was warranted in the interest of justice in
view of the lack of diligence shown by the plaintiff, including [*2]the
one-year delay between the time the summons and complaint were filed
and the time the cross motion to extend her time to serve the summons
and complaint was made, the 9½- month delay between the expiration of
the statute of limitations and the respondent's receipt of notice of
the action, the failure to make any showing of merit, and the lack of
an excuse for the failure to effect timely service (see Slate v Schiavone Constr. Co., 4 NY3d 816, 817; American Tel. & Tel. Co. v Schnabel Found. Co., 38 AD3d 580; Ortiz v Malik, 35 AD3d 560, 560-561; Meusa v BMW Fin. Servs., 32 AD3d 830, 831).