Opinion
November 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well established that the determination of whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Raizner v. City of New York, 174 A.D.2d 423; Mazza v. City of New York, 112 A.D.2d 921). We find no basis upon which to disturb the court's denial of the petitioner's application. The petitioner's belief that workers' compensation was his only means of redress has been held to be an insufficient excuse for failure to timely serve a notice of claim (see, Matter of Hurley v. Avon Cent. School Dist., 187 A.D.2d 982; Matter of Coopersmith v. County of Greene, 173 A.D.2d 1080).
Moreover, the transitory nature of the alleged defective condition, as well as the lack of any evidence that the city received knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the accident or within a reasonable time thereafter provide further support for denial of the application (see, Carbone v. Town of Brookhaven, 176 A.D.2d 778; Matter of D'Andrea v. City of Glen Cove Pub. Schools, 143 A.D.2d 747; Matter of Mallory v. City of New York, 135 A.D.2d 636). Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.