DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the proceeding is dismissed, and the order dated July 8, 1998, is vacated.
In determining whether to permit the service of a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e), the court must consider (1) whether the petitioner has a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, (2) whether the municipality acquired actual notice of the essential facts of the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or within a reasonable time thereafter, and (3) whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in its defense on the merits (see, Bollerman v. New York City School Constr. Auth., 247 A.D.2d 469).
The petitioners failed to demonstrate that the appellant acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the requisite time frame. Notably, the notice of claim served upon the City of New York on December 24, 1997, cannot be imputed to the New York City Housing Authority (see, Hobgood v. New York City Hous. Auth., 253 A.D.2d 555; Perry v. City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 692). The petitioners also failed to proffer a reasonable excuse for the delay in this case.
BRACKEN, J.P., JOY, THOMPSON, GOLDSTEIN and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.