The IAS court correctly dismissed the petition for lack of in personam jurisdiction over defendant NYCHA. The petition was a separate proceeding, as indicated by separate captions and index numbers. Plaintiff commenced the special proceeding through service by regular mail on NYCHA's counsel. The commencement of the special proceeding requires service consistent with CPLR article 3 (Gomez v. Bobker, 104 A.D.2d 790).
Further, the petition would properly have been denied on its merits. On the initial petition, plaintiff's conclusory showing fell far short of the required elements for leave to file a late notice of claim (see, Matter of Perry v. City of New York, 133 A.D.2d 692, 693).
The IAS court correctly adhered to its original determination on renewal. Renewal was based on plaintiff's hospital records and the NYCHA Police Department report on the accident, which indicated only that the plaintiff slipped, hurt his knee, and was taken to the hospital.
The hospital records covered only one month, and not the entire period of unexplained delay, leaving this court to "speculate" as to what occurred during the entire period of delay (Rodriguez v City of New York, 86 A.D.2d 533, appeal dismissed 58 N.Y.2d 899). The police report contained none of the essential facts of the accident, nor was anything else presented to demonstrate actual knowledge on the part of NYCHA (see, Caselli v. City of New York, 105 A.D.2d 251, 256-257).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Asch, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.