Opinion
No. 2010-08552.
September 20, 2011.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Solomon, J.), dated July 15, 2010, which denied the petition.
Philip J. Rizzuto, P.C., Carle Place, N.Y. (Kristen N. Reed of counsel), for appellant.
Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman Dicker LLP, New York, N.Y. (Patrick J. Lawless and Richard E. Lerner of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Lott and Roman, JJ.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim was made about one year and 10 months after the subject accident occurred, and about 8 months after the appointment of an administrator of the Estate of Josephine Curreri. The papers submitted in support of the petition did not contain a proposed notice of claim, which was not in compliance with General Municipal Law § 50-e (7). This alone was a sufficient basis upon which to deny the petition ( see General Municipal Law § 50-e; Matter of Narcisse v Incorporated Vil. of Cent. Islip, 36 AD3d 920, 922; Matter of Scott v Huntington Union Free School Dist., 29 AD3d 1010, 1010; Losavio v Stein, 98 AD2d 742). Furthermore, the petitioner failed to establish that the respondent had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the time specified in General Municipal Law § 50-e (1) (a) or within a reasonable time there-after, and that the delay would not substantially prejudice the respondent in maintaining its defense on the merits ( see General Municipal Law § 50-e; Nappi v County of Suffolk, 79 AD3d 990, 992; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 153; Matter of Acosta v City of New York, 39 AD3d 629, 630). Moreover, the petitioner failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay ( see Matter of Grant v Nassau County Indus. Dev. Agency, 60 AD3d 946, 947; Matter of Gillum v County of Nassau, 284 AD2d 533 [2001.]; Matter of Deegan v City of New York, 227 AD2d 620).