Opinion
February 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that the determination of whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the court ( see, Matter of Rudisel v. City of New York, 217 A.D.2d 702; Matter of Farrell v. City of New York, 191 A.D.2d 698; Ortega v. New York City Hous. Auth., 167 A.D.2d 337). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioners' application. The petitioners failed to present an adequate excuse either for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim or for their delay in moving for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The infancy of the injured petitioner, standing alone, does not compel the granting of an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim ( see, Matter of Bischert v. County of Westchester, 212 A.D.2d 529). Moreover, the City did not have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and the delay prejudiced its ability to maintain its defense on the merits ( see, Rudisel v. City of New York, supra; Carbone v. Town of Brookhaven, 176 A.D.2d 778).
Joy, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.