In Murphy v. Hoppenstein, 279 A.D.2d 410 (1st Dept. Jan. 25, 2001) the Appellate Division, ruled "extensions should be liberally granted whenever plaintiffs have been reasonably diligent in attempted service regardless of the expiration of the Statute of Limitations after filing and before service". In Murphy, a lower court order, entered September 22, 1999, in an action for medical malpractice, which granted plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to make re-service on defendant, Altman, nunc pro tunc, as of the time such re-service was made was affirmed. That court rejected defendant Altman's argument that an extension of the CPLR 306-b 120 day period to make service of the summons and complaint may be granted only if no service, as opposed to improper service, is made within the 120 day period.