| Matter of Doersam v County of Suffolk |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08590 [89 AD3d 1021] |
| November 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Charles Doersam, Appellant, v County ofSuffolk, Respondent. |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Central Islip, N.Y. (Keith R. McHugh of counsel), forrespondent.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a latenotice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley,Jr., J.), dated August 18, 2010, which denied the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the petition for leave toserve a late notice of claim. The petitioner failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his failure to serve atimely notice of claim (see Matter of Felice vEastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d 138, 147 [2008]). Moreover, theevidence submitted by the petitioner along with his petition failed to establish that the County of Suffolkhad actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting his claims within 90 days following their accrualor a reasonable time thereafter (see Williamsv Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 536 [2006]; Matter of Bush v City of New York, 76 AD3d 628, 629 [2010]; Matter of Charles v City of New York, 67AD3d 793 [2009]). Finally, the petitioner failed to establish that the delay in serving a notice ofclaim would not substantially prejudice the County (see Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr.,6 NY3d at 539; Matter of Bush v City of New York, 76 AD3d at 629; Matter of Felice vEastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d at 152-153). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Chambersand Sgroi, JJ., concur.