ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that the determination as to whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, Matter of Major v. County of Nassau, 256 A.D.2d 344; Matter of Singh v. City Univ. of N.Y./Bronx Community Coll., 223 A.D.2d 545, 546). Upon weighing the statutory factors set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) (see, Matter of Beary v. City of Rye, 44 N.Y.2d 398, 412), as well as considering all other relevant facts and circumstances, we find that the court providently exercised its discretion in granting the petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
ALTMAN, J.P., SMITH, KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and COZIER, JJ., concur.