Opinion
December 7, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DiNoto, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that the determination as to whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see, Matter of Sverdlin v. City of New York, 229 A.D.2d 544, 545; Matter of Singh v. City Univ., 223 A.D.2d 545, 546; Matter of Gallino v. Village of Shoreham, 222 A.D.2d 506; Matter of Rudisel v. City of New York, 217 A.D.2d 702).
Upon weighing the statutory factors set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), as well as considering all other relevant facts and circumstances, we find that it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
Pizzuto, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.