Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's argument, the respondent was not required to obtain its consent before settling the underlying action, as there was no provision in the policy requiring such consent (cf., Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Donath, 164 A.D.2d 889; Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Lopez, 163 A.D.2d 390; Matter of State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v Parker, 160 A.D.2d 882).
In addition, we are of the view that the language of the release sufficiently preserved the insurer's subrogation rights (see, Weinberg v Transamerica Ins. Co., 62 N.Y.2d 379).
We also reject the petitioner's contention that the respondent's failure to notify it of the pending lawsuit against the tortfeasor constituted a breach of a condition of coverage. The disputed policy provision relied on by the petitioner states:
"ADDITIONAL DUTY
"Any person seeking coverage under this endorsement must also promptly send us copies of the legal papers if a suit is brought."
This provision is not clearly designated as a condition precedent to arbitration (cf., Brown v MVAIC, 33 A.D.2d 804), and the term "legal papers" is not defined with sufficient clarity to avoid fatal ambiguity (cf., Security Mut. Ins. Co. v Acker-Fitzsimmons Corp., 31 N.Y.2d 436, 439; see also, Allstate Ins. Co. v Noorhassan, 158 A.D.2d 638).
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.