SOBERS v. LOPRESTI

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the cross motion is denied.

The Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to the respondents declaring that the appellant is obligated to defend and indemnify them in the main action. Questions of fact exist as to whether the respondents timely notified the appellant in accordance with policy requirements, and as to whether the respondents demonstrated the existence of a good faith belief in their nonliability (see, Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. North Riv. Ins. Co., 79 N.Y.2d 576; Zadrima v. RSM Ins. Cos., 208 A.D.2d 529; Smalls v. Reliable Auto Serv., 205 A.D.2d 523; Winstead v. Uniondale Union Free School Dist., 201 A.D.2d 721). Furthermore, summary judgment should have been denied since substantial discovery remains outstanding (see, Lantigua v. Mallick, 263 A.D.2d 467).

The respondents' remaining contentions are not properly before us.

RITTER, J.P., FRIEDMANN, McGINITY and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.