Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petition is denied.
While the merits of a claim ordinarily are not considered on a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, where the proposed claim is patently without merit, leave to serve a late notice of claim should be denied ( see Matter of Catherine G. v County of Essex, 3 NY3d 175, 179; Matter of Besedina v New York City Tr. Auth., 47 AD3d 924, 925; Matter of State Farm Fire Cas. Co. v Village of Bronxville, 24 AD3d 453).
Here, the petitioner sought leave to serve a late notice of claim alleging slander. The allegedly slanderous statements, however, were made by Police Officer Errol Wedra during his testimony upon cross-examination at a criminal trial, and were pertinent and material to the cross-examination and the subject matter of the proceeding ( see Harper v Farensbach, 8 AD3d 341; Walton v Markan, 262 AD2d 478, 479; Romeo v Village of Fishkill, 248 AD2d 700; Allan Allan Arts v Rosenblum, 201 AD2d 136, cert denied 516 US 914). Statements made by parties, attorneys, and witnesses in the course of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding are absolutely privileged, notwithstanding the motive with which they are made, so long as they are material and pertinent to the issue to be resolved in the proceeding ( see Rosenberg v MetLife, Inc., 8 NY3d 359, 365; Ingber v Mallilo, 52 AD3d 569, 570; Rufeh v Schwartz, 50 AD3d 1002, 1004; Sinrod v Stone, 20 AD3d 560, 561; Matter of Dunn v Ladenburg Thalmann Co., 259 AD2d 544, 545).
Accordingly, the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim alleging slander should have been denied.