Opinion
Argued November 1, 1999
December 6, 1999
In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Bellantoni, J.), dated September 10, 1998, which granted the application.
Kelly and Meenagh, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Thomas F. Kelly III and John Meenagh of counsel), for appellants.
O'Connell and Aronowitz, Albany, N.Y. (Thomas J. DiNovo and Tina Marie Chericoni of counsel), for respondents.
GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
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 Supreme Court (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; Matter of Embery v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 611 ; 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 ). The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the petitioners' application.
MANGANO, P.J., RITTER, GOLDSTEIN, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.