Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A party who has failed to comply with a demand for examination pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h is precluded from commencing an action against a municipality ( see Patterson v Ford, 255 AD2d 373; Heins v Board of Trustees of Inc. Vil. of Greenport, 237 AD2d 570; Arcila v Incorporated Vil. of Freeport, 231 AD2d 660).
The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, since the hearing pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-h was adjourned at the plaintiff's request, and he commenced this action without rescheduling a new hearing date after the last adjournment ( see Scalzo v County of Suffolk, 306 AD2d 397, 398). Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, his incarceration does not constitute an exceptional circumstance excusing his failure to be examined ( see Zapata v County of Suffolk, 23 AD3d 553; Scalzo v County of Suffolk, supra).