Opinion
Submitted February 21, 2001.
March 26, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lonschein, J.), dated May 4, 2000, which denied her motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
Darmin T. Bachu, Richmond Hill, N.Y. (Thomas Torto of counsel), for appellant.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Francis F. Caputo and Paul L. Herzfeld of counsel), for respondents.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim against the defendant City of New York. The police accident report alone, without any evidence of further investigation by the City, was inadequate to apprise the City of the nature or severity of the injuries claimed (cf., Matter of Cont. Ins. Co. v. City of Rye, 257 A.D.2d 573; Matter of DeAngelis v. County of Dutchess, 159 A.D.2d 706; Wolf v. State of New York, 140 A.D.2d 692). Furthermore, the plaintiff did not offer a valid excuse for her failure to timely serve a notice of claim (see, Matter of Tineo v. City of New York, 273 A.D.2d 397; Matter of Ealey v. City of New York, 204 A.D.2d 720; Matter of Tricomi v. New York City Hous. Auth., 191 A.D.2d 447), and she offered no evidence to rebut the City's demonstration of prejudice (see, Gangloff v. East Islip School Dist., 240 A.D.2d 366, 367).