Opinion
Argued May 30, 2000
August 21, 2000.
In a subrogation action to recover certain costs expended in providing care for Dolores Schaumburg, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated July 29, 1999, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Cook, Tucker, Netter Cloonan, P.C., Kingston, N.Y. (Robert D. Cook of counsel), for appellants.
Scott S. Levinson, Putnam Valley, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, ANITA R. FLORIO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the defendants' contentions, in opposition to their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff subrogee demonstrated the existence of a factual question on the issue of whether the defendants had notice of its claim for medical expenses (see, Ocean Acc. Guar. Corp. v. Hooker Electro-Chemical Co., 240 N.Y. 37; Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Mocchia, 243 A.D.2d 692; Blacharsh v. Hartford Ins. Group, 104 A.D.2d 839; Silinsky v. State Wide Ins. Co., 30 A.D.2d 1). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.