Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that the determination as to whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see, Matter of Sverdlin v. City of New York, 229 A.D.2d 544, 545; Matter of Singh v. City Univ., 223 A.D.2d 545, 546; Matter of Gallino v. Village of Shoreham, 222 A.D.2d 506; Matter of Rudisel v. City of New York, 217 A.D.2d 702).
Upon weighing the statutory factors set forth in General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), as well as considering all other relevant facts and circumstances, we find that it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
Pizzuto, J.P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.