Opinion
November 21, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Stolarik, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
It is well settled that the question of whether to grant an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim is committed to the sound discretion of the court (see, Alvarez v New York City Hous. Auth., 203 A.D.2d 219; Matter of Farrell v City of New York, 191 A.D.2d 698), which must "`strike an equitable balance between a public corporation's need for prompt notification of a claim against it, and an injured party's interest in just compensation'" (Matter of Mondaca v. County of Westchester, 195 A.D.2d 511; Matter of Ferrer v. City of New York, 172 A.D.2d 240). Here, given all of the circumstances presented, including the plaintiffs' explanation for their failure to serve a timely notice of claim, the relatively brief period of delay, the existence of police records and transcripts of Family Court proceedings related to the incident, and the School District's failure to demonstrate that its ability to investigate the claim has been impaired, we cannot say that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs' application (see, Matter of Gadson v. New York City Hous. Auth., 196 A.D.2d 585; Esteves v. New York City Hous. Auth., 175 A.D.2d 197). Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.