Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 7, 2010, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated February 4, 2011, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated February 4, 2011, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the petitioners.
The appellant contends that leave to serve a late notice of claim should have been denied because the claim is patently without merit. While the merits of a claim ordinarily are not considered on a motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim, leave should be denied where the proposed claim is patently without merit (see Matter of Catherine G. v County of Essex, 3 N.Y.3d 175, 179 [2004]; Matter of Gaeta v Incorporated Vil. of Garden City, 72 A.D.3d 683, 684 [2010]; Matter of Chambers v Nassau County Health Care Corp., 50 A.D.3d 1134, 1135 [2008]). In opposition to the petition, the appellant failed to demonstrate at this stage of the proceedings that the underlying claim was patently without merit (see Matter of Billman v Town of Deerpark, 73 A.D.3d 1039, 1040 [2010]; Burke v Incorporated Vil. of Hempstead, 156 A.D.2d 630, 631 [1989]). Accordingly, upon reargument, the Supreme Court properly rejected the appellant's contention and adhered to its original determination granting the petition (see CPLR 2221 [d]).
