Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner's ignorance of the requirement that a notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e must be served within 90 days after accrual of the claim is not a legally acceptable excuse (see, Weber v County of Suffolk, 208 A.D.2d 527; Sellars v New York City Hous. Auth., 173 A.D.2d 691). Nor is there merit to the petitioner's argument that actual knowledge of his false arrest claim may be imputed to the City of New York merely because the petitioner's attorney wrote to the Queens County District Attorney, shortly after the incident occurred, to request dismissal of the charges (see generally, Chattergoon v New York City Hous. Auth., 161 A.D.2d 141, affd 78 N.Y.2d 958).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.