ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In deciding whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider, inter alia, whether the petitioner has demonstrated 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 the 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Kittredge v. New York City Hous. Auth., 275 A.D.2d 746; Rogers v. City of Yonkers, 271 A.D.2d 593; Matter of Guiliano v. Town of Oyster Bay, 244 A.D.2d 408).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the application (see, Kittredge v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Matter of Dominguez v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 326; Walker v. New York City Tr. Auth., 266 A.D.2d 54; Matter of Landa v. City of New York, 252 A.D.2d 525; Matter of Gilliam v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 680).