The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the petition. The petitioner's error in serving NYCHA at the Comptroller's Office and at an incorrect address was an excusable error since the petitioner's attorney promptly re-served NYCHA at its correct address after discovery of the mistake and followed up by commencing this proceeding (seeMatter of Ruffino v. City of New York, 57 A.D.3d 550, 551, 868 N.Y.S.2d 739 ; Simmons v. New York City Hous. Auth., 161 A.D.2d 377, 555 N.Y.S.2d 325 ; Robb v. New York City Hous. Auth., 71 A.D.2d at 1001, 420 N.Y.S.2d 291 ). Furthermore, the petitioner met her initial burden of showing that NYCHA will not be substantially prejudiced by the late notice of claim, since the photographs taken by the petitioner depict the defect as it existed at the time of the accident (seeMatter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Sch. Dist., 28 N.Y.3d 455, 466–467, 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714 ; Matter of Mounsey v. City of New York, 68 A.D.3d 998, 999, 891 N.Y.S.2d 440 ; Matter of Ruffino v. City of New York, 57 A.D.3d at 552, 868 N.Y.S.2d 739 ; Barnes v. New York City Hous. Auth., 262 A.D.2d 46, 47, 691 N.Y.S.2d 463 ).

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits, without costs or disbursements. The fair hearing determination that, at the time the petitioner was denied an emergency assistance grant for rent arrears, he was unable to make future rent payments as required by 18 NYCRR 352.7 (g)(3) (see, Matter of Perez v. Wing, 263 A.D.2d 391; Matter of Hawkins v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Social Servs., 161 A.D.2d 377) is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135; Matter of Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Boland, 282 N.Y. 256). The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County [Louis York, J.]. Substantial evidence in the record supports respondent's determination upholding denial of petitioner's application for emergency rent assistance on the ground that he was ineligible therefor ( see, Baumes v. Lavine, 38 N.Y.2d 296). Petitioner failed to show, inter alia, that the emergency grant was necessary to forestall eviction or that there was a threat to his health and safety ( 18 NYCRR 352.7 [g] [3] [i], [ii]; see, Matter of Hawkins v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Social Servs., 161 A.D.2d 377). It is also clear that petitioner was ineligible for this grant because his gross income exceeds 125 percent of the current Federal income poverty line ( 18 NYCRR 370.3 [b] [2]). Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.

e failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the public housing authority acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the statutory 90-day period or within a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the public housing authority will be substantially prejudiced by the delay in its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; Public Housing Law § 157[2]; Matter of Ramos v. New York City Hous. Auth., 162 A.D.3d 884, 885, 80 N.Y.S.3d 85; Robb v. New York City Hous. Auth., 71 A.D.2d 1000, 1001, 420 N.Y.S.2d 291). "The petitioner's error in serving NYCHA at the Comptroller's Office and at an incorrect address was an excusable error since the petitioner's attorney promptly re-served NYCHA at its correct address after discovery of the mistake and followed up by commencing this proceeding" (Brown v. New York City Hous. Auth., 182 A.D.3d 594, 120 N.Y.S.3d 807, 808, citing Matter of Ruffino v. City of New York, 57 A.D.3d 550, 551, 868 N.Y.S.2d 739; Simmons v. New York City Hous. Auth., 161 A.D.2d 377, 555 N.Y.S.2d 325; Robb v. New York City Hous. Auth., 71 A.D.2d at 1001, 420 N.Y.S.2d 291). Furthermore, the petitioner met his initial burden of showing that NYCHA will not be substantially prejudiced by the late notice of claim, since the photographs taken by the petitioner depict the defect as it existed at the time of the accident (id., citing Matter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Sch. Dist., 28 N.Y.3d 455, 466-467, 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714; Matter of Mounsey v. City of New York, 68 A.D.3d 998, 999, 891 N.Y.S.2d 440; Matter of Ruffino v. City of New York, 57 A.D.3d at 552, 868 N.Y.S.2d 739; Barnes v. New York City Hous. Auth., 262 A.D.2d 46, 47, 691 N.Y.S.2d 463).

The question before the court is whether that Notice is valid against NYCHA, since it lists the City of New York rather than NYCHA in the caption portion of the notice and was served upon the Comptroller of the City of New York. In (Robb v New York City Housing Authority, 71 AD2d 100, 420 NYS2d 291 [2nd Dept. 1979]), the court granted leave to file a late Notice of Claim on the New York City Housing Authority when the claimant did in fact file a timely Notice of Claim on the New York City Comptroller, under the misapprehension that it was sufficient to both the City and the City Housing Authority (See, Simmons v New York City Housing Authority, 161 AD2d 377, 555 NYS2d 325 [1st Dept. 1990].) In fact, it is well established that a court may, in its discretion, allow a mistake, irregularity, or delect in a Notice of Claim to be corrected as long as that mistake, irregularity, or defect was made in good faith and the public corporation was not prejudiced thereby (See, Bowers v City of New York, 147 AD3d 894, 47 NYS3d 209 [2nd Dept. 2017].)