By accepting an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal in satisfaction of the underlying criminal proceedings against him stemming from his December 18, 1998 arrest, plaintiff waived his right to challenge, in connection with both his state and federal claims sounding in false arrest and imprisonment, whether there was probable cause for his arrest (see Roesch v. Otarola, 980 F.2d 850; Singleton v. City of New York, 632 F.2d 185, cert denied 450 U.S. 920; see also Tersigni v. Triborough Bridge Tunnel Auth., 293 A.D.2d 366).
In any event, with regard to the state law claims, plaintiff failed to file a timely notice of claim. The court properly denied plaintiff's request for leave to file a late notice of claim since the request was made after the expiration of the applicable limitations period and plaintiff failed to make the showing required to toll such period (see General Municipal Law § 50-e; Matter of Ragland v. New York City Hous. Auth., 201 A.D.2d 7; Steo v. Cucuzza, 213 A.D.2d 624).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.