DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
General Municipal Law § 50-e(2) provides, in relevant part, that notice be given of the "time when, the place where and the manner in which the claim arose". The purpose of the notice of claim requirement is to afford the municipality an adequate opportunity to timely investigate and defend the claim ( see, Levine v. City of New York, 111 A.D.2d 785). In the instant case, the notice of claim was patently defective since it was silent as to the manner in which the claim arose ( see, Levine v. City of New York, supra; see also, Matter of Albers v. County of Suffolk, 226 A.D.2d 526; DiMenna v. Long Is. Light. Co., 209 A.D.2d 373). Moreover, the notice failed to adequately describe the accident site ( see, Earle v. Town of Oyster Bay, 247 A.D.2d 357; Yankana v. City of New York, 246 A.D.2d 645).
The failure of the original notice of claim to include a sufficient description of the accident site and the manner in which the claim arose, coupled with the unexplained delay of three years in seeking leave to amend the notice of claim, clearly prejudiced the defendant by preventing it from conducting a proper investigation while the facts were still fresh ( see, Earle v. Town of Oyster Bay, supra). Thus, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the plaintiff's cross motion seeking leave to serve an amended notice of claim ( see, Austin v. City of Yonkers, 243 A.D.2d 597; Matter of Adlowitz v. City of New York, 205 A.D.2d 369; Anselmo v. County of Nassau, 192 A.D.2d 567).