Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Under the circumstances of this case, the denial of leave to serve a late notice of claim was a proper exercise of discretion ( see, Shapiro v. Town of Clarkstown, 238 A.D.2d 498). The record indicates that the respondents had no prior knowledge of many of the claims interposed. Moreover, the petitioner's excuses for failing to serve a timely notice of claim were supported only by conclusory allegations ( see, Matter of Finneran v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 596).
Copertino, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.