DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff failed to timely serve a notice of claim (see, Mills v. County of Monroe, 59 N.Y.2d 307, cert denied 464 U.S. 1018; Hibbert v. Suffolk County Dept. of Probation, 267 A.D.2d 205). Moreover, the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim was made more than one year and 90 days after the accrual date of the claim (see, General Municipal Law §§ 50-e, 50-i). Therefore, the Supreme Court did not have authority to grant the cross motion (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; Hibbert v. Suffolk County Dept. of Probation, supra; Matter of Turner v. New York City Hous. Auth., 243 A.D.2d 636; Carr v. City of New York, 176 A.D.2d 779).