Opinion
May 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although the petitioners' alleged claims accrued on June 30, 1990, they did not serve notices of claim upon the respondent until more than 13 months later. In their subsequent requests for leave to serve late notices of claim or to have the notices deemed timely served, the petitioners merely attributed the delay to their ignorance of the notice of claim requirement and their failure to promptly contact an attorney regarding the incident. These proffered explanations failed to constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay (see, Matter of D'Anjou v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 196 A.D.2d 818; Matter of Gandia v. New York City Hous. Auth., 173 A.D.2d 824; Matter of Mallory v City of New York, 135 A.D.2d 636). Moreover, the filing of various incident and injury reports with distinct municipal entities did not constitute adequate notice to the respondent of the particular claims of the petitioners and failed to afford the respondent a sufficient opportunity to promptly investigate the claims (see, Washington v. City of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 881; Brown v. New York City Tr. Auth., 172 A.D.2d 178). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petitions. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and Hart, JJ., concur.