Opinion
March 22, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).
Ordered that the order dated December 17, 1990 is affirmed, and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 28, 1991 is dismissed, and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
Under these circumstances, where there was a pending Federal action involving the same claims which were raised by the plaintiff in the State action, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion to discontinue the State action (see, Tucker v. Tucker, 55 N.Y.2d 378; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac ¶ 3217.06).
The defendants' appeal from the order dated January 28, 1991, should be dismissed inasmuch as they have failed to demonstrate that any of their substantial rights have been affected by the granting of the plaintiff's motion for an extension of time within which to serve the first order (CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Eiber, JJ., concur.