Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Since the appellants failed to offer any evidentiary proof that they did not receive any compensation from the plaintiffs, they failed to show that they were entitled to the protections set out in General Municipal Law § 50-d, including the requirement that plaintiffs serve a notice of claim. Thus, their motion was properly denied ( cf., Toledo v. Ordway, 178 A.D.2d 409; see generally, Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.