Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioners failed to offer either a reasonable excuse for their failure to have served a timely notice of claim or evidence as to if and when the respondents acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting their claims ( see, Matter of Alvarenga v. Finlay, 225 A.D.2d 617; Seif v. City of New York, 218 A.D.2d 595; Hilton v. Town of Richland, 216 A.D.2d 921; Matter of Lamper v. City of New York, 215 A.D.2d 484). Given these facts, and the prejudice inuring to the respondents from the delay, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioners leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; Matter of Carty v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 592; Pollicino v. New York City Tr. Auth., 225 A.D.2d 750; Steiger v. Board of Educ., 192 A.D.2d 517).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Miller, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.