IN RE: Rosa MAURANTONIO (1999)

In a proceeding pursuant to Court of Claims Act § 10(6) for leave to serve a late claim, the claimant appeals from an order of the Court of Claims (Ruderman, J.), dated August 6, 1998, which denied the application.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Court of Claims did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the claimant's application for leave to serve a late claim (see, Court of Claims Act § 10[6];  Matter of Gallagher v. State of New York, 236 A.D.2d 400, 654 N.Y.S.2d 579;  Matter of Soble v. State of New York, 189 A.D.2d 970, 592 N.Y.S.2d 285;  Matter of Donaldson v. State of New York, 167 A.D.2d 805, 806, 563 N.Y.S.2d 366).   The claimant failed to provide a legally acceptable excuse for her eight-month delay in filing a claim against the defendant (see, Mattice v. Town of Wilton, 160 A.D.2d 1195, 555 N.Y.S.2d 461;  Erca v. State of New York, 51 A.D.2d 611, 378 N.Y.S.2d 328, affd. 42 N.Y.2d 854, 397 N.Y.S.2d 631, 366 N.E.2d 291;  cf., Weaver v. State of New York, 112 A.D.2d 416, 492 N.Y.S.2d 75).   In addition, there is no evidence that the defendant acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter.   Thus, the defendant would be substantially prejudiced in maintaining a defense (see, Matter of Sverdlin v. City of New York, 229 A.D.2d 544, 645 N.Y.S.2d 843;  Matter of Wertenberger v. Village of Briarcliff Manor, 175 A.D.2d 922, 573 N.Y.S.2d 757).

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.