Fennell v. City School District of Long BeachFennell v. City School District of Long Beach
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In determining whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim to have been timely served, the court must consider whether (1) the public corporation or its attorney or its insurance carrier acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose or a reasonable time thereafter, (2) the petitioner demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and for the delay in filing the petition, and (3) the delay would substantially prejudice the public corporation in its defense on the merits (see
Here, the City School District of the City of Long Beach (hereinafter the District) acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days after the claim arose.
While the petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve a timely notice of claim and for the further delay in commencing this proceeding (see Matter of Hampson v Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist., 114 AD3d at 791; Matter of Ryan v New York City Tr. Auth., 110 AD3d 902, 903 [2013]; Casias v City of New York, 39 AD3d 681, 683 [2007]), the absence of a reasonable excuse is not fatal to a petition where, as here, there was actual notice and an absence of prejudice (see Matter of Viola v Ronkonkoma Middle Sch., 107 AD3d at 1010; Matter of Rodriguez v Woodhull Sch., 105 AD3d at 1051; Matter of McLeod v City of New York, 105 AD3d 744, 746 [2013]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim or to deem a late notice of claim to have been timely served. Rivera, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.