IN RE: Altagracia POLANCO (2007)

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (George D. Salerno, J.), entered June 3, 2005, which denied the petition to file a late notice of claim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

 Petitioner concedes that she failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for her delay and that her accident was not reported until she made her motion, some 14 months after her claim arose.   Her argument that respondent's records of maintenance and snow and ice removal can provide actual notice of the essential facts underlying her claim is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see e.g. Miles v. City of New York, 173 A.D.2d 298, 300, 569 N.Y.S.2d 691 [1991] ).   Were we to consider it, we would reject it inasmuch as the maintenance and snow and ice removal records would not have given respondent notice that petitioner had allegedly tripped, fallen and broken her leg.

 Even if the claim arose out of a transitory condition, that does not preclude a finding that respondent was prejudiced by petitioner's delay in asserting the claim (see Harris v. City of New York, 297 A.D.2d 473, 474, 747 N.Y.S.2d 4 [2002], lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 503, 753 N.Y.S.2d 806, 783 N.E.2d 896 [2002] ).   In Zarrello v. City of New York, 61 N.Y.2d 628, 471 N.Y.S.2d 846, 459 N.E.2d 1284 [1983], where the plaintiff had delayed for one year and 87 days, the Court of Appeals upheld a finding of prejudice for a claim “predicated on the defective state of the sidewalk and the accumulation of snow and ice” (id. at 630, 471 N.Y.S.2d 846, 459 N.E.2d 1284).

 The mere existence of records does not “eliminate the inference that prejudice would accompany the passage of time” (Matter of Vargas v. New York City Hous. Auth., 232 A.D.2d 263, 648 N.Y.S.2d 546 [1996], lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 817, 659 N.Y.S.2d 858, 681 N.E.2d 1305 [1997] ).   In any event, lack of prejudice, alone, is not determinative (see Bullard v. City of New York, 118 A.D.2d 447, 452, 499 N.Y.S.2d 880 [1986] [Kassal, J. concurring];  see also Matter of Morris v. County of Suffolk, 88 A.D.2d 956, 957, 451 N.Y.S.2d 448 [1982], affd. 58 N.Y.2d 767, 459 N.Y.S.2d 38, 445 N.E.2d 214 [1982] ).

We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them without merit.