Opinion
Submitted December 6, 2000.
December 27, 2000.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated July 7, 2000, which denied the petition.
Martin P. Rutberg, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Elizabeth R. Baum of counsel), for appellant.
McCormick Turpin, Pearl River, N.Y. (Jill E. O'Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., WILLIAM D. FRIEDMANN, HOWARD MILLER, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In determining whether to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider (1) whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, (3) whether the claimant was an infant, or mentally or physically incapacitated, and (4) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Kittredge v. New York City Hous. Auth., 275 A.D.2d 746; [2d Dept., Sept. 18, 2000]; Rogers v. City of Yonkers, 271 A.D.2d 593; Matter of Guiliano v. Town of Oyster Bay, 244 A.D.2d 408). Here, the Supreme Court properly denied the petition, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate either a reasonable excuse for his delay, actual knowledge of the claim on the part of the respondent, or the absence of prejudice to the respondent.