—In a proceeding pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bernstein, J.), dated May 14, 2001, which denied her application.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The key factors to be considered in deciding an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim under the circumstances of this case are whether the petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim, whether the public corporation acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, and whether the delay in serving the notice of claim substantially prejudiced the public corporation in maintaining its defense on the merits (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; Matter of Lyerly v City of New York,
The respondent did not have actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within the appropriate time period, and the petitioner has failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving a timely notice of claim (see Matter of Guiliano v Town of Oyster Bay,
