Opinion
May 16, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Clinton County (Plumadore, J.).
Among the factors to be considered in deciding an application to serve a late notice of claim are whether the public corporation had actual knowledge of the claim and the infancy of the party making the motion (General Municipal Law § 50-e). Not only was the delay here unrelated to petitioner's infancy, as counsel was retained within 90 days of the incident (see, Matter of Sampson v Cazzari, 142 A.D.2d 681; Matter of Albanese v Village of Floral Park, 128 A.D.2d 611, 613), but there is no evidence that respondent had actual knowledge of the claim (see, Washington v City of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 881, 883; Matter of Howard v City of Rochester, 162 A.D.2d 1033, 1034). In addition, petitioner has failed to give an adequate explanation of why this application was delayed for more than one year after the accident (see, Matter of Groshans v Town of Babylon, 143 A.D.2d 666). Under the circumstances, we see no reason to disturb Supreme Court's order denying petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P.J., Levine, Mercure, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.