Opinion
November 7, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Sangiorgio, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court, Richmond County, properly concluded that under the specific facts herein, the dismissal of the original timely action as against the defendant (see, Scharlack v Richmond Mem. Hosp., 127 A.D.2d 580) was inferentially for "neglect to prosecute" within the meaning of CPLR 205 (a) (Ivory v. Ekstrom, 98 A.D.2d 763). Since the statutory six-month extension is not available, the plaintiff's instant action is barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations (see, CPLR 214 [former (6)]; 208). Accordingly, the defendant's motion, which sought dismissal of the complaint upon that ground, was properly granted (Ivory v Ekstrom, supra). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.