DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The determination to grant leave to serve a late notice of claim lies within the sole discretion of the trial court (see General Municipal Law § 50-e; Matter of Valestil v. City of New York, 295 A.D.2d 619, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 615; Matter of Hobgood v. New York City Hous. Auth., 253 A.D.2d 555). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting leave to serve a late notice of claim where the delay was relatively short (17 days), and the defendants failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the delay (see Matter of Bennett v. Mele, 295 A.D.2d 604; Ahferom v. Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 282 A.D.2d 343; Weiss v. City of New York, 237 A.D.2d 212; Matter of Isakvo v. City of New York, 221 A.D.2d 531).
The defendants' remaining contentions, raised for the first time on appeal, are unpreserved for appellate review (see Zafonte v. Steinhammer, 277 A.D.2d 450; Fleet Bank v. Powerhouse Trading Corp., 267 A.D.2d 276).
RITTER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, H. MILLER and COZIER, JJ., concur.