In Caselli v. New York, 105 AD2d 251, 483 N.Y.S.2d 401 [2d Dept 1984] the Court stated; Generally, knowledge of a police officer or of a police department cannot be considered actual knowledge of the public corporation itself regarding the essential facts of a claim (see, e.g., Williams v. Town of Irondequoit, 59 AD2d 1049, 1050, 399 N.Y.S.2d 807). A municipality often will have numerous employees assigned to separate and diverse agencies or departments, and the purpose of the statutory notice of claim requirement would simply not be fulfilled if all information obtained by municipal employees, officers or agencies in the regular course of their business was to be imputed to the municipality (Tarquinio v. City of New York, 84 AD2d 265, 270-271, 445 N.Y.S.2d 732, affd 56 NY2d 950, 439 N.E.2d 331, 453 N.Y.S.2d 615; see, also, Adkins v. City of New York, 43 NY2d 346, 352, 372 N.E.2d 311, 401 N.Y.S.2d 469). In particular, police officers regularly respond to the scene of accidents, and they are generally required to prepare and file reports of such incidents with their departments. To hold that the existence of such a report relieves a claimant of the necessity of complying with the statutory requirements of section 50-e of the General Municipal Law would effectively vitiate the protections afforded public corporations by such statutory provisions. . The court in Caselli also found that where actual knowledge is imputed to a police department, because of the existence of police reports or the involvement of an officer, that other factors need to be present for the court to consider whether the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim within the ninety (90) day period or a reasonable time thereafter through its police officers.