The court providently exercised its discretion in deeming the notice of claim timely served upon appellants (General Municipal Law § 50-e). Although the stated ignorance of the law by infant plaintiffs mother is not a reasonable excuse for the failure to have served a timely notice of claim ( see Harris v City of New York, 297 AD2d 473, lv denied 99 NY2d 503), infant plaintiff should not be deprived of a remedy, where, as here, the record evidence demonstrates that appellants' possession of the medical records sufficiently constituted actual notice of the pertinent facts, and that they would not be substantially prejudiced by the delay ( see De La Cruz v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 13 AD3d 130). Plaintiffs submitted affirmations from a physician establishing that the medical records, on their face, evinced that appellants failed to provide infant plaintiff with preventive care against lead poisoning ( compare Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr., 6 NY3d 531, 537), and appellants' argument that the delay would prejudice them in defending the action because of the inability to reconstruct events and conversations is unconvincing ( Moody v New York City Health Hosps. Corp. [Renaissance Health Care Network], 29 AD3d 395; Matter of McMillan v City of New York, 279 AD2d 280).