They are whether DOE and BOE received actual knowledge of the essential facts of plaintiff's claims within 90 days after her claims arose or a reasonable time afterward, whether plaintiff demonstrates a reasonable excuse for the failure to serve the notice of claim timely, and whether the delay would substantially prejudice DOE and BOE. Mercedes v. City of New York, 169 A.D.3d 606, 607 (1st Dep't 2019); Dominguez v. City Univ. of N.Y., 166 A.D.3d 540, 540-41 (1st Dep't 2018); Thomas v. City of New York, 118 A.D.3d 537, 537 (1st Dep't 2014). A. Actual Knowledge
Petitioner's excuse of law office failure arising from his prior counsel attempting to file a notice of claim against the wrong party is not a reasonable excuse for failing to timely serve a notice of claim upon respondents (see Colarossi v City of New York, 118 A.D.3d 612, 612 [1st Dept 2014]). However, the absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the application, given that respondents had actual notice of the essential facts constituting petitioner's claim and were not prejudiced by the delay (see Clarke v New York City Tr. Auth., 222 A.D.3d 552, 553 [1st Dept 2023]; Matter of Dominguez v City Univ. of N.Y., 166 A.D.3d 540, 541 [1st Dept 2018]).
Instead, respondent made "[g]eneric arguments and inferences" which cannot establish substantial prejudice "in the absence of facts in the record to support such a finding" ( id. at 466, 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714 ).While petitioner did not demonstrate a reasonable excuse for service of her late notice of claim, the lack of excuse is not fatal here (seeMatter of Dominguez v. City Univ. of N.Y., 166 A.D.3d 540, 541, 88 N.Y.S.3d 19 [1st Dept. 2018] ).Finally, we bear in mind that the purpose of the statute is to give the municipality the opportunity to investigate the claim (see Brown v. City of New York, 95 N.Y.2d 389, 393, 718 N.Y.S.2d 4, 740 N.E.2d 1078 [2000] ).
In light of the policies underlying General Municipal Law § 50–e(5), the statute is to be liberally construed to achieve its remedial purposes ( Matter of Thomas v. City of New York, 118 A.D.3d 537, 538, 988 N.Y.S.2d 152 [1st Dept. 2014] ). Assuming that the law firm's clerical error was not a reasonable excuse, " ‘[t]he absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the application,’ " where the municipal respondent had actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim and was not prejudiced by the delay ( Matter of Dominguez v. City Univ. of N.Y., 166 A.D.3d 540, 541, 88 N.Y.S.3d 19 [1st Dept. 2018] ; Renelique v. New York City Hous. Auth., 72 A.D.3d 595, 596, 899 N.Y.S.2d 232 [1st Dept. 2010] ). Here, petitioner's affidavit stating that he signed an incident report prepared by respondent's employee shortly after the accident, and that the weightlifting equipment was repaired a few months later, demonstrate prima facie that respondent received actual notice of the pertinent facts underlying his claim, if not the negligence claim itself, which supports a "plausible argument" that the City will not be substantially prejudiced in investigating and defending the claim (seeMatter of Newcomb v. Middle Country Cent. Sch. Dist., 28 N.Y.3d 455, 466, 45 N.Y.S.3d 895, 68 N.E.3d 714 [2016] ; Renelique, 72 A.D.3d at 596, 899 N.Y.S.2d 232 ; Matter of Toro v. New York City Hous. Auth., 182 A.D.2d 358, 358, 582 N.Y.S.2d 118 [1st Dept. 1992] ).
In light of the DOE's actual knowledge of the facts underlying their claims, plaintiffs have also established that the DOE will not been prejudiced by plaintiffs' delay in filing the notice of claim (See Matter of Orozco v City of New York, 200 A.D.3d 559, 563 [1st Dept 2021]). The DOE's contention "that it did not have an opportunity to conduct an investigation because it was not able to preserve potential evidence or interview witnesses while their memories and recollections were fresh," is "insufficient to demonstrate prejudice" (Matter of Dominguez v City Univ, of New York, 166 A.D.3d 540, 541 [1st Dept 2018]; see also Matter of Mercedes v City of New York, 169 A.D.3d 606, 607-608 [1st Dept 2019]).
Although the Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable excuse of the delay in filing the notice of claim, "'[t]he absence of a reasonable excuse is not, standing alone, fatal to the application,' where the municipal respondent had actual notice of the essential facts constituting the claim and was not prejudiced by the delay". (Mercedesv.City of New York, 169 A.D.3d 606, 607, 94 N.Y.S.3d 69, 70 [1st Dept 2019] quoting Matter of Dominguez v. City Univ. of N.Y, 166 A.D.3d 540, 541, 88 N.Y.S.3d 19 [1st Dept. 2018]). Accordingly, the Petitioner's motion by order to show cause seeking leave to file a late notice of claim as to Respondents METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT AUTHORITY is granted.