Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 29, 1985 is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated October 30, 1985, and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated October 30, 1985 is reversed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and, upon renewal, the order dated August 29, 1985 is vacated, the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is granted, and the plaintiff's notice of claim attached to her moving papers is deemed served.
The plaintiff's failure to offer an acceptable excuse for her failure to timely serve a notice of claim is not fatal to her application for leave to serve a late notice (see, Matter of Cicio v City of New York, 98 A.D.2d 38, 39). Rather, all relevant factors are to be considered, in particular, whether the county acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim (General Municipal Law § 50-e).
The plaintiff's alleged injuries occurred while she was an inmate at the Nassau County Correctional Center and she was treated at the Nassau County Medical Center. Under these circumstances, it would appear that the defendant county had acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim (see, Matter of Wade v. City of New York, 65 A.D.2d 534). Moreover, there is no indication that the county has been substantially prejudiced by the plaintiff's delay (see, Quirk v Morrissey, 106 A.D.2d 498).
Based on an evaluation of all relevant factors, leave to serve a late notice of claim should have been granted. Thompson, J.P., Niehoff, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.