Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The third-party defendant was entitled to rely upon the facially valid power of attorney in this case since the circumstances surrounding its presentation would not have put a reasonable person on notice that something was amiss (see, Grasso v. Fiumara, 167 A.D.2d 510; cf., Collision Plan Unlimited v Bankers Trust Co., 63 N.Y.2d 827). Thus, the Supreme Court did not err in dismissing the third-party complaint. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.