Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is well settled that General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) permits the court to consider all relevant factors and to exercise considerable discretion in determining whether to permit service of a late notice of claim (see, Matter of Mazzilli v City of New York, 115 A.D.2d 604, 605; Matter of Lucas v. City of New York, 91 A.D.2d 637). At bar, after reviewing the circumstances of the plaintiffs' application, we conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in granting leave to file a late notice of claim. We concur in the court's determination that considering all the relevant factors, the plaintiffs have established a reasonable excuse for their failure to timely serve their notice of claim. The greater part of the delay was attributable to the plaintiffs' excusable error concerning the identity of the public corporation against which the claim should have been asserted (cf., Tadros v. New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 112 A.D.2d 85, 86). Moreover, the appellant's conclusory allegation of severe prejudice is unsupported by the record (see, Matter of Mazzilli v. City of New York, supra, at 606; Pepe v. Somers Cent. School Dist., 108 A.D.2d 799, 800). Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and Sullivan, JJ., concur.