ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law 50-e(5), a court must consider whether there is a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality to be served acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality (see, Matter of Vandaatselaar v. Town of Hempstead, A.D.2d [2d Dept., May 7, 2001]; Matter of Acosta v. City of New York, A.D.2d [2d Dept., May 14, 2001]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion (see, Vandaatselaar v. Town of Hempstead, supra; Matter of Acosta v. City of New York, supra; Kittredge v. New York City Hous. Auth., 275 A.D.2d 746).
SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, LUCIANO, FEUERSTEIN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.