Opinion
October 26, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Under the circumstances, we find that the appellant was informed of the nature of the petitioner's claim within a reasonable time after the expiration of the 90-day period for serving a timely notice of claim and there is no basis in the record for concluding that the appellant will be substantially prejudiced by permitting the service of a late notice of claim (see, General Municipal Law § 50-e; Beatty v. County of Saratoga, 74 A.D.2d 662, appeal dismissed 53 N.Y.2d 939; Matter of Wemett v. County of Onondaga, 64 A.D.2d 1025). Moreover, the petitioner did offer a reasonable excuse for her delay in serving a timely notice of claim (see, Matter of Wemett v. County of Onondaga, supra; Matter of Edwards v. Town of Delaware, 115 A.D.2d 205). We note that "[a]t issue here is not the merit of [the petitioner's] claim, but whether [the Supreme Court] abused its discretion in granting permission to [serve] a late notice of claim. Since proof of the merit of [the petitioner's] claim is not a stated criterion for permission to [serve] a late notice under subdivision 5 of section 50-e, [the petitioner was] under no obligation to present a prima facie case on this motion" (Hamm v. Memorial Hosp., 99 A.D.2d 638, 639; see, Passalacqua v County of Onondaga, 94 A.D.2d 949). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.