Majority
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Plumadore, J.), entered May 10, 1990 in Clinton County, which denied petitioner’s application pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
Among the factors to be considered in deciding an application to serve a late notice of claim are whether the public corporation had actual knowledge of the claim and the infancy of the party making the motion (General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). Not only was the delay here unrelated to petitioner’s infancy, as counsel was retained within 90 days of the incident (see, Matter of Sampson v Cazzari, 142 AD2d 681 ; Matter of Albanese v Village of Floral Park, 128 AD2d 611 , 613), but there is no evidence that respondent had actual knowledge of the claim (see, Washington v City of New York, 72 NY2d 881 , 883; Matter of Howard v City of Rochester, 162
Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Levine, Mercare, Crew III and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Washington v. City of New York 72 NY2d 881 at 883 p. 1079
- Groshans v. Town of Babylon 143 AD2d 666 p. 1080