Opinion
Submitted December 15, 1999
March 17, 2000
In a proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e Gen. Mun.(5), the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), entered December 17, 1998, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.
Bradley A. Sacks, New York, N.Y. (Sanocki, Newman Turret, LLP [David B. Turret] of counsel), for appellants.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Barry P. Schwartz and Susan Rockford of counsel), for respondent.
GUY JAMES MANGANO, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, DANIEL W. JOY, LEO F. McGINITY, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioners failed to offer any reasonable excuse for the delay of over seven months between the date of the occurrence and the date that they applied for leave to serve a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e Gen. Mun.[1][a]; Matter of Farrell v. City of New York, 191 A.D.2d 698).
In addition, the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the respondent received actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the occurrence of the accident or a reasonable time thereafter (see, Washington v. City of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 881, 882).
The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.
MANGANO, P.J., RITTER, JOY, McGINITY, and SMITH, JJ., concur.