It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting plaintiffs application seeking leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). Plaintiff offered a reasonable excuse for failing to serve the notice of claim within the statutory 90-day period (see § 50-e [1] [a]; see generally Matter of LaMay v County of Oswego, 49 AD3d 1351, 1352, lv denied 10 NY3d 715). Contrary to defendant's contention, plaintiff "made a persuasive showing that [Onondaga County (defendant)] `acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim' . . . [, and defendant has] made no particularized or persuasive showing that the delay caused [it] substantial prejudice" ( Wetzel Servs. Corp. v Town of Amherst, 207 AD2d 965; see Matter of Rodriguez v Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp., 74 AD3d 1811).