ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not err, upon renewal, in dismissing the complaint because the plaintiffs failed to file a timely notice of claim (see, Mills v. County of Monroe, 59 N.Y.2d 307, cert denied 464 U.S. 1018 ; Sebastian v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 221 A.D.2d 294 ). A notice of claim was required because the plaintiffs sought only to vindicate their individual interests, in the form of money damages, for an alleged invasion of their personal and/or property rights (Executive Law § 296; County Law § 52[1]; General Municipal Law §§ 50-e, 50-i; Roens v. New York City Tr.Auth., 202 A.D.2d 274 ). Moreover, the plaintiffs' cross motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, or to have prior lawsuits and Federal filings deemed the equivalent of a timely notice of claim, nunc pro tunc, was made on June 30, 1997, more than one year and 90 days from the March 14, 1994, accrual date of their grievance. The Supreme Court was therefore without authority to grant their cross motion (General Municipal Law § 50-e[5]; see, e.g., Pierson v. City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950 ; McSherry v. Hawthorne School, 246 A.D.2d 517 ; see also, Piontka v. Suffolk County Police Dept., 202 A.D.2d 409 ).
BRACKEN, J.P., S. MILLER, THOMPSON, and FRIEDMANN, JJ., concur.