Even if the lack of counsel and ignorance of the law were reasonable excuses, no explanation has been offered for the two-year delay between counsel's January 2012 service of a late notice of claim, without leave of the court, which rendered that notice a nullity, and service of this motion. Abad vNew York Health & Hosps. Corp., 114 AD3d 564, 566 (1st Dept 2014); cf. Basualdo v Guzman, 110 AD3d 610, 610 (1st Dept 2013). Also, Matos has not established that the delay of close to four years in moving for leave to serve a notice of claim was due to Iverson's infancy.

Even if it were not, the lack of a reasonable excuse is not dispositive. The absence of a reasonable excuse defeats an extension of time to serve a notice of claim only when accompanied by an unreasonable delay, without notice of the facts constituting the claim, and prejudice, Virella v. City of New York, 137 A.D.3d 705, 705–706, 29 N.Y.S.3d 21 (1st Dep't 2016) ; Todd v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. Off. of Legal Affairs, Claims Div., 129 A.D.3d 433, 433, 11 N.Y.S.3d 124 (1st Dep't 2015) ; Colarossi v. City of New York, 118 A.D.3d 612, 612–13, 989 N.Y.S.2d 24 (1st Dep't 2014) ; McClatchie v. City of New York, 105 A.D.3d 467, 468, 963 N.Y.S.2d 87 (1st Dep't 2013), and unaccompanied by a showing of merit to the claim, Abad v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 114 A.D.3d 564, 565, 980 N.Y.S.2d 450 (1st Dep't 2014), and when the excuse offered lacks veracity. Gonzalez v. City of New York, 127 A.D.3d 632, 633–34, 8 N.Y.S.3d 290 (1st Dep't 2015) ; Brown v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. (N. Central Bronx Hosp.), 116 A.D.3d 514, 514, 984 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1st Dep't 2014).

Additionally, the records of subsequent treatment at SUNY Downstate and New York Presbyterian Hospital cannot be used to show that KCHC had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim (see Abad ex rel. Morales v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 114 AD3d 564, 980 N.Y.S.2d 450 [1 Dept., 2014], leave to appeal denied sub nom., Abad v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 24 NY3d 909, 23 N.E.3d 153 [2014]). Further, the fact that a 50-h hearing was conducted, alone, does not provide actual knowledge (Scantlebury v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 4 NY3d 606, supra, citing Stallworth v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 243 AD2d, 663 N.Y.S.2d 287 [2 Dept., 1997] ["the Comptroller of the City of New York is insufficient to constitute service on [HHC], the proper party to be served" and "[t]he lack of service ... [is] not cured by the participation of [HHC] in the General Municipal Law § 50—h hearing or by the provisions of General Municipal Law § 50—e (3)(c)"]).

Accordingly, petitioner failed to demonstrate that the records evinced that the HHC medical staff inflicted an injury on petitioner during the birth process. Additionally, the records of subsequent treatment at SUNY Downstate and New York Presbyterian Hospital cannot be used to show that KCHC had actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim (seeAbad ex rel. Morales v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 114 AD3d 564, 980 N.Y.S.2d 450 [1 Dept., 2014], leave to appeal denied sub nom.,Abad v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 24 NY3d 909, 23 N.E.3d 153 [2014] ). Further, the fact that a 50-h hearing was conducted, alone, does not provide actual knowledge ( Scantlebury v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., 4 NY3d 606, supra , citing Stallworth v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 243 AD2d, 663 N.Y.S.2d 287 [2 Dept., 1997] ["the Comptroller of the City of New York is insufficient to constitute service on [HHC], the proper party to be served" and "[t]he lack of service ... [is] not cured by the participation of [HHC] in the General Municipal Law § 50—h hearing or by the provisions of General Municipal Law § 50—e (3)(c)"] ).