DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the petitioner's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim, as the petitioner did not provide any reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e[a]; [5]; Matter of Dube v. City of New York, 158 A.D.2d 457, 458). Additionally, although a police report was filed regarding the accident, it did not itself constitute actual notice to the respondent of the essential facts constituting the petitioner's claim (see, Matter of Deegan v. City of New York, 227 A.D.2d 620; Matter of Dancy v. Poughkeepsie Hous. Auth., 220 A.D.2d 413; Matter of Dube v. City of New York, supra; Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 255-258; see also, Olivera v. City of New York, 270 A.D.2d 5 [1st Dept., Mar. 2, 2000]). Finally, there was no evidence rebutting the respondent's claim that it was prejudiced as a result of the petitioner's delay in filing the notice of claim (see, Deegan v. City of New York, supra).
MANGANO, P.J., SANTUCCI, KRAUSMAN and FLORIO, JJ., concur.