Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We agree with plaintiffs that an action against a municipality for a violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not require the filing of a notice of claim (see, Felder v Casey, 487 U.S. 131). The allegations in the instant complaint, however, are too vague and conclusory to plead a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (see, Alfaro Motors v Ward, 814 F.2d 883, 887).
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim for the causes of action for money damages was properly denied (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e). The motion was made after expiration of the applicable Statute of Limitations (see, County Law § 52; General Municipal Law § 50-i), and Supreme Court lacked the authority to permit late service of the notice (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; Pierson v City of New York, 56 N.Y.2d 950).