Opinion
Argued September 13, 1999
October 18, 1999
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.).
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioners' contentions, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying their application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, Matter of Embery v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 611; Matter of Sverdlin v. City of New York, 229 A.D.2d 544). The petitioners did not proffer a reasonable excuse for their failure to file a timely notice of claim (see, Matter of Perez v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 688; Matter of Deegan v. City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 620), and the respondents established that they had been prejudiced by the delay (see, Matter of Landa v. City of New York, 252 A.D.2d 525; Matter of Gilliam v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 680; Matter of Pruden v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 235 A.D.2d 426).
The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit.
BRACKEN, J.P., S. MILLER, KRAUSMAN, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.