Opinion
October 3, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Saladino, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is denied.
It is well settled that in deciding applications for leave to serve a late notice of claim, courts are not required to grant extensions in every case involving infants (see, Cohen v Pearl Riv. Union Free School Dist., 51 N.Y.2d 256; Montana v City of New York, 96 A.D.2d 1031; Matter of Ford v Town of Guilderland, 85 A.D.2d 868). In the case at bar, the disability of infancy is outweighed by other factors. No adequate explanation was given for the delay in bringing the proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim until over a year after the accident (see, Matter of Katz v Rockville Centre Union Free School Dist., 131 A.D.2d 574; Montana v City of New York, supra; Fox v City of New York, 91 A.D.2d 624). Nor did the papers submitted in support of the application allege adequate facts to establish that the town had actual knowledge of the facts underlying the claim of negligence within a reasonable time after the accident occurred (see, Matter of Soe v County of Westchester, 142 A.D.2d 584; Fox v City of New York, supra, Matter of Katz v Rockville Centre Union Free School Dist., supra). In addition, the delay in the case at bar was unrelated to the claimant's infancy (see, Matter of Albanese v Village of Floral Park, 128 A.D.2d 611; Montana v City of New York, supra; Matter of Katz v Rockville Centre Union Free School Dist., supra). Under these circumstances, the application to file a late notice of claim should have been denied. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.