Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The claimant applied for leave to file a late notice of claim three days after expiration of the 90-day period set forth in Court of Claims Act § 10 (2).
Since the State was directly involved in the investigation of the circumstances of the death of the claimant's decedent, it had notice of the facts of the claim and suffered no prejudice. The instant claim involves the scope of the duty of the State University to take steps to protect persons on its premises from a student enrolled at its campus whose dangerous propensities were alleged to have been known prior to the attack. Related issues have been addressed in several recent cases (see, e.g., Miller v State of New York, 62 N.Y.2d 506; Eiseman v State of New York, 109 A.D.2d 46; see also, Satiro v City of New Rochelle, 64 N.Y.2d 614; Crosland v New York City Tr. Auth., 110 A.D.2d 148) and may be the subject of further development. We cannot say, at this stage in the proceedings, that the claim is "patently groundless", or that the claimant may not be able to show, after a greater development of the facts, that he has a valid cause of action (see, Court of Claims Act § 10; Prusack v State of New York, 117 A.D.2d 729; Santana v New York State Thruway Auth., 92 Misc.2d 1, 11). Under these circumstances, and noting the lack of prejudice to the State, the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the late filing of this claim (see, Gatti v State of New York, 90 A.D.2d 840). Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.