Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim as the petitioner failed to provide a valid excuse for the delay (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e). The petitioner's assertion that he lacked fluency in the English language is an unacceptable excuse for failure to timely serve a notice of claim (see, Matter of Tricomi v New York City Hous. Auth., 191 A.D.2d 447; Figueroa v City of New York, 92 A.D.2d 908). Moreover, the petitioner's claim of law office failure is unsubstantiated by the record. Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Hart, JJ., concur.