| Matter of Taylor v County of Suffolk |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 09136 [90 AD3d 769] |
| December 13, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of James Taylor et al., Appellants, v Countyof Suffolk et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Christine Malafi, County Attorney, Hauppauge, N.Y. (Marcia J. Lynn of counsel), forrespondents.
In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a latenotice of claim, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Molia, J.), dated June 15, 2010, which denied the petition.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petition for leave toserve a late notice of claim. The petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for theirone-year delay in filing the petition. The petitioners' alleged ignorance of the law is not areasonable excuse for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Bush v City of NewYork, 76 AD3d 628 [2010]; Matter of Dancy v Poughkeepsie Hous. Auth., 220AD2d 413 [1995]), and the injured petitioner failed to submit any medical evidence to supporthis claim that he was incapacitated to such an extent that he could not comply with the statutoryrequirement to serve a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Wright v City of New York, 66 AD3d 1037, 1038[2009]; Matter of Portnov v City of GlenCove, 50 AD3d 1041 [2008]; Matter of Papayannakos v Levittown Mem. Special Educ. Ctr., 38AD3d 902 [2007]).
The petitioners contend that the respondents acquired actual knowledge of the factsconstituting the claim within 90 days after the accident or a reasonable time thereafter by virtueof a police accident report made by the responding police officer. However, for a report toprovide actual knowledge of the essential facts, one must be able to readily infer from that reportthat a potentially actionable wrong had been committed by the public corporation (see Matter of Devivo v Town ofCarmel, 68 AD3d 991, 992 [2009]; Matter of Wright v City of New York, 66AD3d at 1038). Here, the police accident report did not provide the respondents with actualnotice of the petitioners' claim of negligence in the happening of this accident or of the injuredpetitioner's claim that he was injured as a result of the respondents' negligence (see Matter ofWright v City of New York, 66 AD3d at 1038; Matter of National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v Town of Eastchester, 48AD3d 467, 468 [2008]). [*2]Furthermore, the petitionersfailed to demonstrate that the delay did not substantially prejudice the respondents in maintainingtheir defense on the merits (see Matterof Liebman v New York City Dept. of Educ., 69 AD3d 633 [2010]; Matter of Smith v Baldwin Union FreeSchool Dist., 63 AD3d 1078 [2009]; Matter of Felice v Eastport/South Manor Cent. School Dist., 50 AD3d138, 152-153 [2008]). Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Belen, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.