In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), dated February 14, 2001, which denied the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court, in its discretion, may grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). The key factors which the court must consider are whether the movant demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether
The delay in serving the notice of claim in this case was the result of law office failure, which is not an acceptable excuse for the failure to timely comply with the provisions of General Municipal Law § 50-e (see Matter of Kittredge v New York City Hous. Auth.,
Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner’s application. Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, O’Brien, H. Miller and Townes, JJ., concur.
