Opinion
October 2, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We concur in the finding of the Supreme Court that the appellant and its insurance carrier acquired knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim within 90 days of the incident which gave rise to the injuries (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e). The incident was witnessed by at least one employee of the appellant, and the school quickly received written detailed reports of the incident and the infant petitioner's injuries. We further find that the appellant has failed to show that it was prejudiced by the late service of a formal notice of claim or that its ability to investigate the claim has in any way been impaired (see, Baldeo v City of New York, 127 A.D.2d 809; Matter of De Groff v Bethlehem Cent. School Dist., 92 A.D.2d 702). Accordingly, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion to grant the infant petitioner's motion for permission to serve a late notice of claim (see, Pepe v Somers Cent. School Dist., 108 A.D.2d 799; Matter of Welsh v Berne-Knox-Westerlo Cent. School Dist., 103 A.D.2d 950; Matter of Tetro v Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. School Dist., 99 A.D.2d 814). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.