Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion for leave to file a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e). The plaintiff offered no excuse for his failure to file a timely notice of claim, or for his 14-month delay in making the instant application (see, Perry v City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 692; Matter of Heather v County of Rensselaer, 88 A.D.2d 718; Rodriguez v City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 533). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.