DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion, with costs, and the application is denied.
When a plaintiff is seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim, the court must consider whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for his or her failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the municipality to be served acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of its accrual (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e[1]) or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice the municipality in maintaining its defense on the merits (see, Matter of Shapiro v. County of Nassau, 208 A.D.2d 545 ; Levette v. Triborough Bridge Tunnel Auth., 207 A.D.2d 330 ; Carbone v. Town of Brookhaven, 176 A.D.2d 778 ).
The plaintiff failed to proffer an adequate explanation for the delay in filing an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the County did not have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days or a reasonable time thereafter, and the delay prejudiced its ability to maintain its defense on the merits (see, Matter of Galluccio v. City of New York, 247 A.D.2d 473 ; Matter of Rudisel v. City of New York, 217 A.D.2d 702 ; Leszczynska v. City of New York, 207 A.D.2d 329 ;Messina v. City of New York, 190 A.D.2d 659 ; Carbone v. Town of Brookhaven, supra; Herman v. Town of Huntington, 173 A.D.2d 681 ).