Opinion
October 27, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.)
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In weighing the statutory factors and considering all the other relevant facts and circumstances, we find that it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (McKinney's Uncons Law of N.Y. § 7401 [New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation Act § 20 (L 1969, ch 1016,§ 1)]; General Municipal Law § 50-e; Matter of Gallino v. Village of Shoreham, 222 A.D.2d 506; Matter of Farrell v. City of New York, 191 A.D.2d 698; Ortega v. New York City Hous. Auth., 167 A.D.2d 337, 338). The petitioner failed to give an acceptable excuse for the seven month delay in making this application ( see, Matter of Serrano v. New York City Hous. Auth., 197 A.D.2d 694), and failed to demonstrate that the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting this claim within 90 days after the claim arose or within a reasonable time thereafter ( see, Matter of Sica v. Board of Educ., 226 A.D.2d 542; Ceely v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 162 A.D.2d 492). Moreover, her delay in serving a notice of claim deprived the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation of the opportunity to conduct an adequate investigation of the circumstances surrounding the accident and to explore the merits of the claim against it while information was still readily available ( Pollicino v. New York City Tr. Auth., 225 A.D.2d 750, 751; Steiger v. Board of Educ., 192 A.D.2d 517; Matter of Wertenberger v. Village of Briarclif Manor, 175 A.D.2d 922, 923).
O'Brien, J.P., Thompson, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur