Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Anthony J. Paris, J.), entered January 26, 2012. The order granted the application of claimant for leave to serve a late notice of claim.
Sugarman Law Firm, LLP, Syracuse (Jenna W. Klucsik of Counsel), for Respondent–Appellant. Kuehner Law Firm, PLLC, Syracuse (Brian D. Roy of Counsel), for Claimant–Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
Contrary to respondent's contention, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in granting claimant's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50–e (5). Although a court may properly consider whether a claimant provided a reasonable excuse for failing to serve a timely notice of claim ( see Parton v. Onondaga County, 81 A.D.3d 1433, 1433–1434, 916 N.Y.S.2d 880), a claimant's failure to tender a reasonable excuse “is not fatal where ... actual notice was had and there is no compelling showing of prejudice to [respondent]” (Matter of Hall v. Madison–Oneida County Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 66 A.D.3d 1434, 1435, 885 N.Y.S.2d 690 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Hale v. Webster Cent. School Dist., 12 A.D.3d 1052, 1053, 784 N.Y.S.2d 449). Here, claimant “made a persuasive showing that [respondent] ‘acquired actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim’ ... [and respondent has] made no particularized or persuasive showing that the delay caused [it] substantial prejudice” ( Wetzel Servs. Corp. v. Town of Amherst, 207 A.D.2d 965, 965, 616 N.Y.S.2d 832;see § 50–e [5] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, and SCONIERS, JJ., concur.