Matter of Miranda v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 2011 NY Slip Op 01896 [82 AD3d 536]

March 15, 2011

Appellate Division, First Department

— [*1]

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Suzanne K. Colt of counsel), for appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered on or about June 5, 2009, which granted petitioner’s motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim on behalf of her infant child with respect to the care and treatment provided on August 25, 2006, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about October 9, 2009, which, inter alia, granted petitioner’s cross motion to renew, and, upon renewal, adhered to the prior order and expanded it to include additional allegations regarding the care received by the infant child on April 4, 2006, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The evidence establishes that respondent’s possession of medical records provided it with actual notice of the pertinent facts underlying petitioner’s claim and that respondent would not be substantially prejudiced by petitioner’s delay in serving the notice of claim ( see De La Cruz v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. , 13 AD3d 130 [2004]; Matter of McMillan v City of New York , 279 AD2d 280 [2001]; General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]; cf. Williams v Nassau County Med. Ctr. , 6 NY3d 531 [2006]). Contrary to respondent’s argument, the delay will not prejudice its defense due to an inability to reconstruct events. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.