May 3, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
When determining an application for leave to serve a late notice of claim pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5), a court has broad discretion to consider all relevant factors (see, Matter of Beary v City of Rye, 44 N.Y.2d 398; Fox v City of New York, 91 A.D.2d 624). Although ignorance of the need to serve a timely notice of claim will not generally excuse a failure to do so (see, Washington v City of New York, 72 N.Y.2d 881; Matter of Mallory v City of New York, 135 A.D.2d 636), where, as here, the failure to serve a notice of claim in a timely fashion is related to the infancy of the petitioner, it may constitute an acceptable excuse (see, Matter of Kurz v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 174 A.D.2d 671; Matter of Groshans v Town of Babylon, 143 A.D.2d 666).
In this case, the petitioner commenced the instant proceeding for leave to serve a late notice of claim within the statutory one-year 90-day period during which the court had discretion to grant the application, without reference to the available toll for the petitioner's infancy (see, CPLR 208; see, Matter of Kurz v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., supra). The appellant school district received timely actual notice of some of the facts underlying the petitioner's claim and has not demonstrated the validity of its claim of prejudice. Accordingly, we find that the court properly exercised its discretion to permit the petitioner to serve a late notice of claim. Bracken, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.