Opinion
February 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) allows courts to consider all relevant factors and to exercise considerable discretion in determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim (see, Baldeo v City of New York, 127 A.D.2d 809). In the instant case, after reviewing the circumstances underlying the petitioner's application, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in deeming the previously served notice of claim timely. The application was made within one year and 90 days of the accident and the petitioner set forth a reasonable excuse for her delay. Moreover, the appellant's conclusory allegations of prejudice are unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Mazzilli v City of New York, 115 A.D.2d 604, 606). Under the circumstances, the petitioner's application was properly granted (see, Sanchez v County of Westchester, 146 A.D.2d 620). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.