IN RE: Thomas GILLIAM (1998)

In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated March 31, 1997, which denied his application.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

 The Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim.   The petitioner has failed to provide a legally acceptable excuse for his delay in serving a notice of claim.   Ignorance of the statutory requirements for serving a timely notice of claim constitutes an unacceptable excuse (see, Alper v. City of New York, 228 A.D.2d 390, 644 N.Y.S.2d 623;  Matter of Dancy v. Poughkeepsie Hous. Auth., 220 A.D.2d 413, 414, 631 N.Y.S.2d 879;  Weber v. County of Suffolk, 208 A.D.2d 527, 528, 616 N.Y.S.2d 807).

The petitioner stated in the petition that he returned to the site of the alleged accident six days after its occurrence, took photographs of the damaged pole, brought the photographs to the police station, and met with a police officer to fill out reports.   This demonstrated that the petitioner was not suffering from any physical disability which would have prevented him from consulting with an attorney in a timely fashion.

 There is no evidence supporting the petitioner's contention that the City received actual notice of the claim within the requisite 90-day time period.   The mere completion of an incident information slip and a police accident report within the police precinct does not constitute notice to the City of an impending claim since the reports did not connect the petitioner's injuries to any negligence on the part of the City (see, Deegan v. City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 620, 643 N.Y.S.2d 596;  see also, Shapiro v. County of Nassau, 208 A.D.2d 545, 616 N.Y.S.2d 786;  Ribeiro v. Town of N. Hempstead, 200 A.D.2d 730, 607 N.Y.S.2d 108;  Matter of Serrano v. New York City Hous. Auth., 197 A.D.2d 694, 696, 602 N.Y.S.2d 935;  Siena v. Marlboro Houses, 188 A.D.2d 534, 535, 591 N.Y.S.2d 199).

In addition, the City of New York would be prejudiced if this application were granted and a notice of claim permitted to be served almost nine months after the claim arose.   The City has been denied the opportunity to investigate the facts and defend itself on the merits as well as to locate and examine witnesses while their memories of the facts were still fresh (see, Steiger v. Board of Educ. for Connetquot Cent. School Dist. of Islip, 192 A.D.2d 517, 595 N.Y.S.2d 827;  Matter of Wertenberger v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, 175 A.D.2d 922, 573 N.Y.S.2d 757).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.