IN RE: Gwendolyn PRUDEN (1997)

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, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated November 6, 1995, which denied her application.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In determining whether leave to serve a late notice of claim should be granted, it has been repeatedly held that a court should consider the following key factors:  whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days from its accrual or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (Matter of Buddenhagen v. Town of Brookhaven, 212 A.D.2d 605, 622 N.Y.S.2d 547;  Matter of Sosa v. City of New York, 206 A.D.2d 374, 614 N.Y.S.2d 50;  Matter of Shapiro v. County of Nassau, 208 A.D.2d 545, 616 N.Y.S.2d 786;  Matter of Strauss v. New York City Tr. Auth., 195 A.D.2d 322, 600 N.Y.S.2d 32).

Here, the petitioner has failed to provide a reasonable excuse for her excessive delay in serving her notice of claim.   Even after she found out how serious her injury was, she still delayed another four months before commencing this proceeding.   The petitioner also failed to establish that the respondents acquired actual knowledge of the facts of this matter within 90 days of the incident upon which the claim is based or a reasonable time thereafter.   Furthermore, the respondents have been greatly prejudiced by the petitioner's unexplained delay by being deprived of the opportunity to conduct a timely and meaningful investigation of this matter (see, Matter of Light v. County of Nassau, 187 A.D.2d 720, 590 N.Y.S.2d 291, Matter of Wertenberger v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, 175 A.D.2d 922, 573 N.Y.S.2d 757, Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 483 N.Y.S.2d 401).  Accordingly, the application was properly denied.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.