DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the application is denied.
The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioners' application for leave to serve a late notice of claim since the petitioners did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely serve a notice of claim, the appellant did not acquire actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and the appellant would be prejudiced by the lengthy delay ( see Matter of Termini v. Valley Stream Union Free School Dist. No. 13, 2 A.D.3d 866; Matter of Di Fusco v. Mahopac School Dist. of Town of Carmel, N.Y., 299 A.D.2d 544; Irizarry v. Ying-Choi Lee, 258 A.D.2d 619).
In any event, the Supreme Court had no authority to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim individually to the petitioner Relaya Howell, as the application was made after the expiration of the statute of limitations applicable to her individual cause of action ( see Pierson v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950; Matter of Turner v. New York City Hous. Auth., 243 A.D.2d 636).
ALTMAN, J.P., FLORIO, LUCIANO and MASTRO, JJ., concur.