Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contentions, there is a justiciable controversy between the appellants and the plaintiffs with respect to the scope of the appellants' insurance coverage of the defendant S. Zara Sons Contracting Co. (hereinafter Zara) in connection with Zara's allegedly negligent sewer construction work performed pursuant to its contracts with the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk. As third-party beneficiaries of the construction contracts in question (see, Burns Jackson Miller Summit Spitzer v. Lindner, 59 N.Y.2d 314, 336; Bethpage Water Dist. v. Hendrickson Bros., 138 A.D.2d 660, 661), under the circumstances, the plaintiffs stand to benefit from the appellants' insurance coverage, which, the appellants allege, has been exhausted as a result of the numerous negligence actions underlying this declaratory judgment action. Accordingly, we find that there is an actual controversy supporting the present action (see, CPLR 3001; see, e.g., Reliance Ins. Co. v. Garsart Bldg. Corp., 122 A.D.2d 128, 131), and further find that the plaintiffs had standing to maintain it (see, Costa v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 204 A.D.2d 591; Reliance Ins. Co. v. Garsart Bldg. Corp., supra, at 131; cf., Clarendon Place Corp. v. Landmark Ins. Co., 182 A.D.2d 6).
We have examined the appellants' contentions pursuant to CPLR 3024 and find them to be without merit, for reasons stated by Justice Doyle at the Supreme Court. Thompson, J.P., Balletta, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.