April 4, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
It is well established that the question of whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is left to the sound discretion of the court (see, Ortega v New York City Hous. Auth., 167 A.D.2d 337). Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the infant plaintiff leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, King v City of New York, 90 A.D.2d 714). Balletta, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.