Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs have raised triable issues of fact, such as whether the drug manufactured by the appellant caused the injured plaintiff's breast cancer, whether the treating physician's use of the drug was reasonably foreseeable, and whether the warnings which accompanied the drug were adequate (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557; Johnson v. Johnson Chem. Co., 183 A.D.2d 64; Baker v. St. Agnes Hosp., 70 A.D.2d 400; cf., Martin v. Hacker, 83 N.Y.2d 1). The Supreme Court therefore properly denied the appellant's motion for summary judgment (see, CPLR 3212). Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.