Opinion
June 18, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff's application for leave to file a late notice of claim was not made within one year and 90 days after the claim accrued. As a result, the Supreme Court properly concluded that it was without discretion to grant the relief requested (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; Pierson v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950; Cohen v. Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 51 N.Y.2d 256; Binyard v. City of New York, 151 A.D.2d 712). We note, moreover, that the plaintiff's untimely application cannot be deemed to relate back to a prior motion (see, Matter of Lopez v City of New York, 123 A.D.2d 765; Thomas v. City of New York, 102 A.D.2d 867; Stoute v. City of New York, 91 A.D.2d 1043, appeal dismissed 59 N.Y.2d 602). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.