MICALI v. UNION FREE VALLEY STREAM SCHOOL

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

When deciding whether to grant a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim, a court must consider whether the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see Matter of Kittredge v. New York City Hous. Auth., 275 A.D.2d 746; Rogers v. City of Yonkers, 271 A.D.2d 593; Matter of Guiliano v. Town of Oyster Bay, 244 A.D.2d 408).

Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petition (see Matter of Kittredge v. New York City Hous. Auth., supra; Matter of Dominguez v. City of New York, 272 A.D.2d 326; Walker v. New York City Tr. Auth., 266 A.D.2d 54; Matter of Landa v. City of New York, 252 A.D.2d 525; Matter of Gilliam v. City of New York, 250 A.D.2d 680; Matter of Deegan v. City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 620; Matter of Serrano v. New York City Hous. Auth., 197 A.D.2d 694), as the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his delay, sufficient knowledge of the claim on the part of the respondent, and the absence of prejudice to the respondent (see Matter of Hunte v. City of New York, 284 A.D.2d 396; Matter of Acosta v. City of New York, 283 A.D.2d 489).

ALTMAN, J.P., S. MILLER, ADAMS and MASTRO, JJ., concur.